Kelly presses the government on federal finances, demanding answers on the $67-billion deficit, debt interest costs of $54 billion a year, and the Trans Mountain cost overrun, and calling for repeal of laws that block pipelines and other major projects. He leans on personal jabs instead of the argument at hand, calling a minister’s conduct “in his arrogance and hubris” and the Prime Minister’s “limited civic literacy”. He keeps repeating the same question when ministers give no answer.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .
Average grade
A–
The average grade of 61 analysed statements. 16 more were analysed but were too short to grade.
89 / 100 over 61 statements
Signal79 / 100
Relevance86 / 100
Respect99 / 100
Clarity98 / 100
Loses points more than most for An insult aimed at a person.12.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean →×12.5Loses 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 61 of 77 statements graded so far.
“I want to give the member the rest of the time to finish what she was saying.”
“Madam Speaker, if there is only a minute left, I wanted the member to have the time, if she has something further to add to the previous intervention or anything that was missed so far.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, if there is only a minute left, I wanted the member to have the time, if she has something further to add to the previous intervention or anything that was missed so far.
“Conservatives did not shut down Parliament, and we cannot do that. The Liberals are the ones who shut down Parliament.”
“Madam Speaker, members cannot mislead the House. The Conservatives never shut down Parliament. We do not have the ability to shut down Parliament. The only party that shut down Parliament was the Liberal Party when it prorogued Parliament.”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, members cannot mislead the House. The Conservatives never shut down Parliament. We do not have the ability to shut down Parliament. The only party that shut down Parliament was the Liberal Party when it prorogued Parliament.
“We have only debated this large bill for about three hours. I want to know if the member thinks we should actually debate and fix bills, or just cheer for whatever the government does.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill covers a lot of ground and has been debated for only about three hours. If the member thinks that is sufficient, does he believe that the House is a debating chamber where legislators debate relevant legislation with an aim to improve it, or does he believe that the chamber is merely an audience for people to clap and cheer for those things that are put before it by the current government?”
Official Hansard
Madam Speaker, the bill covers a lot of ground and has been debated for only about three hours. If the member thinks that is sufficient, does he believe that the House is a debating chamber where legislators debate relevant legislation with an aim to improve it, or does he believe that the chamber is merely an audience for people to clap and cheer for those things that are put before it by the current government?
“The government keeps breaking its own spending rules. What new rule will it invent next year after it breaks this one?”
“Madam Chair, those are new ones. He has discharged and cut loose every anchor that they have assigned for themselves. What is going to be their new fiscal anchor they make up next year when this fiscal anchor is cut loose like so many before it?”
Official Hansard
Madam Chair, those are new ones. He has discharged and cut loose every anchor that they have assigned for themselves. What is going to be their new fiscal anchor they make up next year when this fiscal anchor is cut loose like so many before it?
“The government's debt grew faster than the economy, breaking its own promise. How much debt interest does the minister think Canadian families can afford to pay?”
“Madam Chair, the answer is that the debt-to-GDP ratio went up, even though that is the fiscal anchor that they have been claiming for most of the last 10 years. They have broken their fiscal anchor. How much interest per household does he think Canadian families can afford for his debt?”
Official Hansard
Madam Chair, the answer is that the debt-to-GDP ratio went up, even though that is the fiscal anchor that they have been claiming for most of the last 10 years. They have broken their fiscal anchor. How much interest per household does he think Canadian families can afford for his debt?
“The government promised the debt would shrink compared to the size of the economy, but it is growing. I want a yes or no answer: is this debt ratio higher this year than last year?”
“Madam Chair, they have been claiming for years that there would be a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but there is not. The debt-to-GDP ratio is rising. Is the debt-to-GDP ratio higher this year than last year, yes or no?”
Official Hansard
Madam Chair, they have been claiming for years that there would be a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, but there is not. The debt-to-GDP ratio is rising. Is the debt-to-GDP ratio higher this year than last year, yes or no?
“The minister did not answer my question. Canadian families are paying about $3,400 this year just toward the interest on the government's debt. How much more interest does he think a family can afford to pay?”
“Madam Chair, that is another non-answer. The per family debt charge is about $3,400 right now, this year. How much does he think a Canadian family can afford to spend on interest on the federal debt?”
Official Hansard
Madam Chair, that is another non-answer. The per family debt charge is about $3,400 right now, this year. How much does he think a Canadian family can afford to spend on interest on the federal debt?
“I want the minister to answer my questions. The interest on Canada's debt will rise to $81 billion by 2031. Is that more than what we plan to spend on health care?”
“Madam Chair, Canadians are not going to learn anything tonight if the minister will not answer any questions. The interest on Canada’s debt is projected to rise by 50%, from $54 billion to $81 billion, in 2030-31. Is that more than future health transfers are budgeted for?”
Official Hansard
Madam Chair, Canadians are not going to learn anything tonight if the minister will not answer any questions. The interest on Canada’s debt is projected to rise by 50%, from $54 billion to $81 billion, in 2030-31. Is that more than future health transfers are budgeted for?
“The minister did not answer my question. We are paying $54 billion in interest this year. Is that more or less than the money the government sends for health care?”
“Madam Chair, the minister has not answered the question. He has just repeated the same promise that they have been breaking since 2015. Canada’s current interest costs for this year are $54 billion. Is that amount more or less than the current federal health transfer?”
Official Hansard
Madam Chair, the minister has not answered the question. He has just repeated the same promise that they have been breaking since 2015. Canada’s current interest costs for this year are $54 billion. Is that amount more or less than the current federal health transfer?
“The government broke its promises to build infrastructure and balance the budget. I want the minister to tell me what year the budget will finally be balanced.”
“Madam Chair, for clarity, I am speaking for five minutes and then sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and the member for Calgary East, for five minutes each, after I have concluded. In 2015, the minister’s government promised to run modest deficits that would fund unprecedented infrastructure spending and would allow the budget to balance itself, as they put it. Instead, they created a structural deficit for 10 years, and, 10 years later, they have broken the same promise that they made back in 2015 about infrastructure. Perhaps tonight will be the night when the minister will finally answer this question and tell me in what year the budget will be balanced.”
Official Hansard
Madam Chair, for clarity, I am speaking for five minutes and then sharing my time with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and the member for Calgary East, for five minutes each, after I have concluded. In 2015, the minister’s government promised to run modest deficits that would fund unprecedented infrastructure spending and would allow the budget to balance itself, as they put it. Instead, they created a structural deficit for 10 years, and, 10 years later, they have broken the same promise that they made back in 2015 about infrastructure. Perhaps tonight will be the night when the minister will finally answer this question and tell me in what year the budget will be balanced.
“I want Alberta to stay part of Canada, but many Albertans are angry. The Liberal government has hurt Alberta since 2015. The Prime Minister needs to admit his mistakes and show that he cares about my province.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am a fifth-generation Albertan, and I believe in the future for a strong Alberta within a united Canada. I will vote for Alberta to remain a province of Canada. However, members of the House must understand that many Albertans are angry, and I am one of them. We are angry that, since 2015, this Liberal government has made decisions and introduced laws that harm Alberta right up to this very day. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to show leadership. It is time for him to acknowledge how much harm his government has done to the unity of this country. It is time for him to show humility. It is time for contrition. It is time for action that will prove to Albertans that their federal government cares enough about Alberta to admit to its mistakes. It is time to show Alberta that Confederation works and to convince Albertans that the best is yet to come for Alberta within this great country, Canada, that so many Albertans and I love so much.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am a fifth-generation Albertan, and I believe in the future for a strong Alberta within a united Canada. I will vote for Alberta to remain a province of Canada. However, members of the House must understand that many Albertans are angry, and I am one of them. We are angry that, since 2015, this Liberal government has made decisions and introduced laws that harm Alberta right up to this very day. Now is the time for the Prime Minister to show leadership. It is time for him to acknowledge how much harm his government has done to the unity of this country. It is time for him to show humility. It is time for contrition. It is time for action that will prove to Albertans that their federal government cares enough about Alberta to admit to its mistakes. It is time to show Alberta that Confederation works and to convince Albertans that the best is yet to come for Alberta within this great country, Canada, that so many Albertans and I love so much.
“The government wants to end debate on this budget bill after only three hours. I want the minister to answer if he thinks three hours is enough time to debate it.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion to cut off debate on a budget bill after only three hours. The minister has been asked repeatedly but has not answered the question. Does he think that three hours is a sufficient debate for the bill?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion to cut off debate on a budget bill after only three hours. The minister has been asked repeatedly but has not answered the question. Does he think that three hours is a sufficient debate for the bill?
“The government is cutting off debate on this economic bill after only three hours. I want the minister to tell us if he thinks that is accountable, especially when the plan will cause huge debt.”
“Mr. Speaker, we now see the character of this new majority government. Liberals are going to use their numbers to stifle debate and prevent scrutiny of their bills. Since they tabled Bill C-30, there have been maybe three hours of debate. Does the minister think that is parliamentary accountability and a sufficient opportunity for members on all sides to question the minister on his horrific spring economic statement, with crippling debt service charges projected in the years ahead?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, we now see the character of this new majority government. Liberals are going to use their numbers to stifle debate and prevent scrutiny of their bills. Since they tabled Bill C-30, there have been maybe three hours of debate. Does the minister think that is parliamentary accountability and a sufficient opportunity for members on all sides to question the minister on his horrific spring economic statement, with crippling debt service charges projected in the years ahead?
“I support this bill. The government shares less and less information with Parliament every year, including through access to information requests. We need this law to fix that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words when he identified me under my former riding name. I am very pleased that the member has been able to move this legislation. It is important. The reason it is important is that we have actually seen a deterioration in the information available to parliamentarians over the last number of years. The Liberals disclose even less information than they once did when we make inquiries through questions on the Order Paper or through the access to information system. There is a real need for this legislation, and the problem is becoming more urgent, not less. Would the member like to comment on the reason we need this legislation?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his kind words when he identified me under my former riding name. I am very pleased that the member has been able to move this legislation. It is important. The reason it is important is that we have actually seen a deterioration in the information available to parliamentarians over the last number of years. The Liberals disclose even less information than they once did when we make inquiries through questions on the Order Paper or through the access to information system. There is a real need for this legislation, and the problem is becoming more urgent, not less. Would the member like to comment on the reason we need this legislation?
“The Liberals failed to make their case in court when they had the chance. Now their appeal will be much harder. What does the member think about that?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member’s speech covered many key points. One of the most important federal ties to this issue is the Liberals’ failure to make the argument in court when they could the first time around, making the appeal of the decision they say they oppose so much more difficult. Could the member maybe comment on that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, the member’s speech covered many key points. One of the most important federal ties to this issue is the Liberals’ failure to make the argument in court when they could the first time around, making the appeal of the decision they say they oppose so much more difficult. Could the member maybe comment on that?
“The government keeps breaking its own spending rules. Their debt is not going down like they claim, and our standard of living has not improved in ten years.”
“Mr. Speaker, is he talking about maintaining their fiscal anchors? Is this parliamentary secretary serious? He was not here, I guess. Maybe he has not been here to see how many fiscal anchors have been declared and discarded since 2015, even the one he cited in his remarks. He possibly misspoke, but he said that they have a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. They do not. If we look at the budget, it is right there in the statement. They got rid of that fiscal anchor. That is not the current one. He talked about the Liberals congratulating themselves on their deficit being $11 billion lower than what they forecasted five months ago. That is like congratulating themselves for taking off the carbon tax after they put it on in the first place. I do not know what else to say. The standard of living is unchanged in 10 years with these guys.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, is he talking about maintaining their fiscal anchors? Is this parliamentary secretary serious? He was not here, I guess. Maybe he has not been here to see how many fiscal anchors have been declared and discarded since 2015, even the one he cited in his remarks. He possibly misspoke, but he said that they have a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. They do not. If we look at the budget, it is right there in the statement. They got rid of that fiscal anchor. That is not the current one. He talked about the Liberals congratulating themselves on their deficit being $11 billion lower than what they forecasted five months ago. That is like congratulating themselves for taking off the carbon tax after they put it on in the first place. I do not know what else to say. The standard of living is unchanged in 10 years with these guys.
“I want the government to answer for its huge deficit. The deficit ended up at 67 billion dollars, which is more than double the last one. The Liberals claim they are spending this money to build big projects, but they have not built anything. They have canceled pipelines instead of building them.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on adjournment business to seek a little more accountability from the government for its response to a question that I asked in question period a couple of weeks ago. I questioned the government about the deficit, which had not yet been tabled. I simply asked whether or not the government could give assurance to the House that it would not be higher than the projected deficit that Justin Trudeau submitted in the last financial update that was tabled in the House when he was prime minister. Some will recall the chaos around that. The finance minister resigned two days or so before it was to be tabled. For those of us who were here then, we did not even know if there was going to be a budget that day. It was chaotic. There were boxes. Nobody knew if we were even going to get a briefing in a lock-up over it. It was delayed. There was no speech. When we did receive the budget, there was no signature and no name. It was like an anonymous budget just dropped by a random Liberal minister who was called upon to do it. The finance minister resigned over that budget or had resigned already. The former prime minister resigned not long after that. The issue then was the deficit. The deficit was so big then that nobody was willing to take responsibility for it. The Liberals’ own cabinet and caucus decided enough is enough and it was time to bring in somebody who could actually balance the budget or at least control spending and restore fiscal sanity. However, as it turned out, it actually got worse. The first budget the government tabled was more than twice the last budget, which was so bad it resulted in resignations. In response to that, this is what the member said. He would not give assurance that there would not be more than $30 billion in deficit. It turned out to be $67 billion. However, he said, “We are building big, we are building bold and we are building across this country.” What are Liberals even talking about? What are they building? They are not building anything. They talk about the need for energy infrastructure. They talk about the need for all kinds of infrastructure. They have been campaigning and talking about this since 2015 without doing anything. Here we are, over a year after the Prime Minister said they were going to build major projects at unimaginable speeds. The government gave itself extraordinary new powers to approve new major projects. None have been approved. None are being built. The Liberals are not building big across the country. They are just talking about it. Each time, it is as if they are having an out-of-body experience when they say, “Oh, if only we had a pipeline, we could be an energy superpower.” They had one on the table that was approved. The very first thing they did in 2015 was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. Then they chased out the proponent of the energy east pipeline. Then they chased out the private sector builder of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The government has no track record on building anything, and the budget that it brought in is twice as bad as Trudeau’s final budget, the one that triggered his resignation.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on adjournment business to seek a little more accountability from the government for its response to a question that I asked in question period a couple of weeks ago. I questioned the government about the deficit, which had not yet been tabled. I simply asked whether or not the government could give assurance to the House that it would not be higher than the projected deficit that Justin Trudeau submitted in the last financial update that was tabled in the House when he was prime minister. Some will recall the chaos around that. The finance minister resigned two days or so before it was to be tabled. For those of us who were here then, we did not even know if there was going to be a budget that day. It was chaotic. There were boxes. Nobody knew if we were even going to get a briefing in a lock-up over it. It was delayed. There was no speech. When we did receive the budget, there was no signature and no name. It was like an anonymous budget just dropped by a random Liberal minister who was called upon to do it. The finance minister resigned over that budget or had resigned already. The former prime minister resigned not long after that. The issue then was the deficit. The deficit was so big then that nobody was willing to take responsibility for it. The Liberals’ own cabinet and caucus decided enough is enough and it was time to bring in somebody who could actually balance the budget or at least control spending and restore fiscal sanity. However, as it turned out, it actually got worse. The first budget the government tabled was more than twice the last budget, which was so bad it resulted in resignations. In response to that, this is what the member said. He would not give assurance that there would not be more than $30 billion in deficit. It turned out to be $67 billion. However, he said, “We are building big, we are building bold and we are building across this country.” What are Liberals even talking about? What are they building? They are not building anything. They talk about the need for energy infrastructure. They talk about the need for all kinds of infrastructure. They have been campaigning and talking about this since 2015 without doing anything. Here we are, over a year after the Prime Minister said they were going to build major projects at unimaginable speeds. The government gave itself extraordinary new powers to approve new major projects. None have been approved. None are being built. The Liberals are not building big across the country. They are just talking about it. Each time, it is as if they are having an out-of-body experience when they say, “Oh, if only we had a pipeline, we could be an energy superpower.” They had one on the table that was approved. The very first thing they did in 2015 was cancel the northern gateway pipeline. Then they chased out the proponent of the energy east pipeline. Then they chased out the private sector builder of the Trans Mountain pipeline. The government has no track record on building anything, and the budget that it brought in is twice as bad as Trudeau’s final budget, the one that triggered his resignation.
“I do not know why the Liberals are ignoring reports and witnesses about military sexual assault. Nobody recommends keeping sexual misconduct cases in the military justice system. The government has spent 11 years failing to pass laws to solve this problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why. The member is asking why the Liberals are choosing to ignore all the testimony and the substance of all three reports. Nobody is saying that sexual assault and misconduct cases must stay within the military justice system. Nobody is recommending that. I have no idea why they are ignoring all the witness testimony they heard and why they spent 11 years not dealing with and solving the problem with legislation to deal with sexual misconduct in the armed forces.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why. The member is asking why the Liberals are choosing to ignore all the testimony and the substance of all three reports. Nobody is saying that sexual assault and misconduct cases must stay within the military justice system. Nobody is recommending that. I have no idea why they are ignoring all the witness testimony they heard and why they spent 11 years not dealing with and solving the problem with legislation to deal with sexual misconduct in the armed forces.
“I disagree with what the government is doing. Members of Parliament from different parties worked together on a committee to make good changes to this bill. Now the government is undoing that work just because it can.”
“Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with what the government is doing, and I thank the member for the way he put it. That is exactly what we have seen and what is happening today. The government is undoing the work of a parliamentary committee that did good work on behalf of Canadians. MPs from different parties co-operated with each other and produced sound, principled amendments to deal with a real problem, and now the Liberals are undoing that work because they can.”
Mr. Speaker, I completely disagree with what the government is doing, and I thank the member for the way he put it. That is exactly what we have seen and what is happening today. The government is undoing the work of a parliamentary committee that did good work on behalf of Canadians. MPs from different parties co-operated with each other and produced sound, principled amendments to deal with a real problem, and now the Liberals are undoing that work because they can.
“The Prime Minister calls his members of Parliament his deputies, as if they only work for him. MPs are elected by Canadians. None of us work for the Prime Minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the member completely missed the point. I was not speaking of the Prime Minister’s use of French or English. I was talking about his use of the English word “deputy” when clearly characterizing his MPs as his deputies. The Prime Minister thinks that the MPs of his party are his deputies, just there to do his work. However, they are elected by the people of Canada. All MPs are elected by the people of Canada. Nobody is the Prime Minister’s deputy around here.”
Mr. Speaker, I think the member completely missed the point. I was not speaking of the Prime Minister’s use of French or English. I was talking about his use of the English word “deputy” when clearly characterizing his MPs as his deputies. The Prime Minister thinks that the MPs of his party are his deputies, just there to do his work. However, they are elected by the people of Canada. All MPs are elected by the people of Canada. Nobody is the Prime Minister’s deputy around here.
