MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

Pierre Poilievre

Follow by RSS

Poilievre seeks to lower fuel costs, repeal the clean fuel standard, and reverse government deficits he claims add $40,000 in debt per family. He critiques the Liberal government by suggesting leaders operate with self-serving intentions, famously stating that spending benefits “to his banker friends.” He often frames his arguments around the government’s failures.Written by AI from their statements. Updated .

Average grade
A–
89 / 100 over 262 statements
Signal 80 / 100
Relevance 73 / 100
Respect 98 / 100
Clarity 96 / 100
Loses points more than most for Claiming to know a person’s bad motives.6.5 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×6.5 Mocking a person instead of answering their argument.6.1 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×6.1 Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.1.7 times as often as most members.What the tags mean ×1.7 Loses points less than most for A story that illustrates instead of making a point.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Thanks and tributes.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Staying near the subject without addressing the matter at hand: what was asked, or what the bill, motion or speech is about.Less often than most members.What the tags mean Averaged over the 262 of 275 statements graded so far.

Statements 275

Oral Questions ·

Taxation

“Gas costs more today than it did in 2014 when oil was the same price. It also costs more than in the U.S. This is because of the Prime Minister's taxes, high spending, and a weak dollar. Will he cancel all gas taxes for the rest of the year?”
  • A repeated line

    “The price of a barrel of oil was $100, but the price at the pump was only $1.34 a litre.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since May 5.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, increases in the price of a barrel of oil are partly responsible for the higher prices at the pump. In 2014, the price of a barrel of oil was exactly the same, at $100. However, gas prices were 50¢ cheaper. Also, U.S. gas prices are 15% lower than ours. There is something that this Prime Minister is doing that explains the difference: taxes, inflationary deficits and a very weak dollar. Will he have the courage to stand up in the House of Commons and announce today that he will get rid of all gas taxes for the rest of the year, yes or no?

“Gas costs more today than it did in 2014, even though oil costs the same. High taxes and government policies are why it costs more. I want the Prime Minister to stop collecting all gas taxes for the rest of the year.”
  • A repeated line

    “The price at the pump was $1.38 per litre.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since May 4.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He likes to blame the $1.85-a-litre price of gas on the fact that the oil is $100 a barrel. Here are the facts: In 2014, the same barrel of oil cost $100, but the price at the pump was $1.38 per litre. That is nearly 50¢ less than today. This is due to taxes, inflationary deficits that drive up prices, and anti-development policies that reduce the value of our dollar. Will he get rid of all gas taxes for the rest of the year?

Oral Questions ·

Indigenous Affairs

“The Prime Minister told his lawyers not to defend the rights of homeowners in British Columbia in court. I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister’s answer on property rights is all an illusion. The Liberal government directed its lawyers not to defend property rights. Litigation directive number 14 said that lawyers are not to make the case that fee simple property ownership takes precedence over all other claims. That directive is still on the government website, meaning that in all the litigation that is coming up on property ownership, the Prime Minister is directing his lawyers not to do their jobs and not to defend British Columbia homeowners. Why is that?

“The Prime Minister told his lawyers not to defend homeowners' property rights in a British Columbia court case. He is still doing this in the appeal. Why will he not defend homeowners?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister likes to spread the illusion that he is protecting property rights, but the reality is quite the contrary. The Liberal government instructed its lawyers not to defend property rights in the Cowichan case, with litigation directive number 14, which said that in fact those titles did not take priority. Now the dispute is going to an appeal, and the Prime Minister has kept that litigation order in place. In other words, he is directing his lawyers not to defend the property rights of British Columbians. Why is it that the Prime Minister refuses to defend homeowners?

Oral Questions ·

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship

“There are roughly 700 Iranian regime members in Canada, and the government has only removed one. The government also does not track who leaves the country, and it let in millions of students with no plan to remove them. I want to know if the Prime Minister will fire the immigration minister.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is factually wrong. There are roughly 700 IRGC members here in Canada, according to a report by Global News, and the government claims to have expelled only one, one out of 700. Furthermore, the Prime Minister has no idea who has left the country, because the Liberals still do not track departures. This is despite the fact that the Liberal government allowed millions of international students to come in, many on a fraudulent basis and many not planning to leave at all. Now we know that the existing Liberal minister has no plan to get them out, despite meeting with the Prime Minister every week. Will he fire her for this immigration incompetence, or does he approve of it?

“The government let a terrorist into the country. It also has no way to track if people who are here illegally leave. The immigration minister is doing a bad job. When will the Prime Minister fire her?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions, the Prime Minister brings more costs, more debt and more chaos to immigration. Recently, his Liberal immigration minister admitted that her department granted a permit to enter the country to an IRGC terrorist. The Auditor General also confirms that the Liberal government has no way of confirming that people who are here illegally ever actually leave. There is no exit tracking whatsoever. The Prime Minister appointed the Liberal immigration minister, has kept her in place for a year and meets with her weekly. Is it because she is incompetent, or is her incompetence actually his incompetence, and when will he fire her?

“The immigration minister let an Iranian terrorist into Canada. The Auditor General found the government does not properly screen non-citizens, leading to fraud in the student visa system. Will the Prime Minister fire this minister, or is he to blame?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, according to her testimony, this is the same Liberal minister who meets with the Prime Minister to chat every week. Her department gave an entry permit to an Iranian terrorist. A brief Google search would have shown that he does not belong here in Canada. The Auditor General confirmed that the Liberals do not screen non-citizens, allowing widespread fraud in the student system. Will the Prime Minister fire his incompetent minister, or is this incompetence on the Prime Minister himself?

“The Prime Minister is mismanaging immigration. His minister admitted the government does not know if people leave when their student permits expire, and has no plan to deport people here illegally. Does the Prime Minister agree with letting people stay illegally, or will he fire his minister?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, despite the illusions, this Prime Minister is bringing more costs, more debt, more taxes, and more chaos to immigration. He is just another Liberal. Yesterday, his Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship admitted that this Liberal government cannot even confirm that people who were here as temporary students left the country once their permits expired. She admits that the Liberal government has no plan to deport people who are here illegally. Does the Prime Minister agree with keeping people who are here illegally, or is he going to fire his minister?

Government Orders ·

Business of Supply

In response to a question from Alex Ruff

“The government is spending 60 billion dollars a year on debt interest. That costs each family 3,400 dollars this year, and it is growing fast. We must balance the budget and control spending.”
  • 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, it is now $60 billion of annual interest, money for bankers and bondholders, not doctors and nurses, and $3,400 from every family will go to pay interest on the federal debt this year. That number will go up by 50% over the next five years. This is the fastest-growing item on the government’s budget right now: interest on the debt. It will enrich the bankers and the bondholders at the expense of hard-working people and threaten the future of our kids. That is why we need to restore fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets and controlled spending.

In response to a question from Xavier Barsalou-Duval

“The Prime Minister is hurting the economy with high taxes and too many rules. He picks a few favoured businesses to get special help and avoid regulations, while ignoring small businesses. He should let the free market work so all businesses can do well.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 88 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the Prime Minister wants to be king of the economy”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants to be king of the economy. He is holding on to all kinds of regulations that are hurting businesses. Businesses that are getting ahead are being slapped down with hefty taxes, except for a small group personally chosen by the Prime Minister. The member is absolutely right: Under the law, these powers all belong to the Prime Minister. That is no exaggeration. These special businesses will be able to sidestep all the rules and receive subsidies and gifts from the fund, which opens the door to corruption and leaves millions of small businesses out in the cold. Why not open up the free market so that all businesses can prosper?

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“Canada's economy has not grown in ten years. It is doing worse than all other G7 countries. The government has not fixed taxes or cut bad rules, and the deficit has doubled. People can already invest in businesses if they want to. The government should not force them to take on $25 billion in debt to give money to powerful corporations.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

    “Since the Liberal Prime Minister took office.”

    Said 3 times by 3 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is no prosperity and growth to participate in. This economy has not grown in a decade. In fact, Canada has had the worst economic performance of all G7 countries. Since the Liberal Prime Minister took office, nothing has changed. There has been no regulatory reform and no tax reform, and not a single antidevelopment law has been eliminated. Other than to rename the carbon tax as the clean fuel standard, there has been no serious tax reform. Finally, and I guess it is the only difference, the deficit is twice the size now of what it was under Justin Trudeau. Now, as for participating in growing the Canadian economy, people have the freedom right now to buy into a Canadian stock index if they want to do that. I do not understand why they need the government to force them to take on a $25-billion liability on the credit card for the Liberal government to dole out, in a political slush fund, to those politically powerful corporations.

In response to a question from Sandra Cobena

“More businesses are closing in Canada than opening, and money is leaving the country. Canadian business owners are now opening more businesses in the United States instead of here. The government's investment summit will only help big multinational corporations, not small Canadian businesses.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The member is quite right. For six consecutive quarters, there have been more businesses that have closed than opened in Canada. A recent survey showed there are twice as many Canadian businesses that opened in 2024 outside of Canada than inside of Canada. For the elbows-up crowd in the room, Canadians are now opening more businesses in the United States than they are opening in Canada. In the last decade, $1 trillion of net investment has flowed out of our country. A majority of Canadian pension funds are, according to Statistics Canada, invested abroad and not here at home, a problem that has worsened since the Prime Minister took office. Now, the question was very particular: Would the million small businesses across this country benefit? Of course not. They will not be invited to the investment summit. It will just be for large multinational corporations that have political power. Small businesses that serve customers will lose. Multinationals that serve politicians in power will win.

In response to a question from Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe

“Norway can have a wealth fund because it saves its oil money and has budget surpluses. Canada cannot do that because we run deficits every year. The government will have to borrow money to make these investments, which is risky and irresponsible.”
  • 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, I would like to thank the member for his compliment about the expression I used in French, “patente à gosses”. Every day, I try to learn a little more of the language of Molière. A little poetry can sometimes be a delight. The difference is that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund contains funds. It is simple. We do not have any funds here. The people of Norway have surpluses because they take revenue from the oil industry, which makes up 25% of their economy, and they put that revenue in a fund and invest it. Here in Canada, we do not have surpluses. We have deficits year after year. The government is just going to put this investment on the credit card. It is taking big risks with money that belongs to future generations by charging this to the credit card. That is irresponsible, and it is the opposite of what the folks in Norway do.

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I have been right about the economy for 22 years, and the Prime Minister has been wrong. He was wrong about the carbon tax, stopping pipelines, and inflation. How can he be wrong so often?”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 10 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. The member has been giving the same speech on the same Liberal side for the last decade. He speaks, and the reality— An hon. member: As you have done for 22 years. Hon. Pierre Poilievre: Mr. Speaker, for 22 years, on every single economic issue, I have been proven right. On every single economic issue, the Liberal Prime Minister has been proven wrong. The Prime Minister was wrong to say that we needed bigger and broader carbon taxes. He was wrong to say that we needed to keep 50% of our oil in the ground. He was wrong to testify before a parliamentary committee against the northern gateway pipeline, which would be moving $30 billion of oil overseas today, had the government not blocked it. He was wrong to say that we would have deflation after COVID. He was wrong to say that money printing would not cause inflation. He was wrong just weeks ago when he said that affordability is the best it has been in the decade. How is it that he has been so wrong for so long?

“I want the government to cancel its plan for a 25-billion-dollar sovereign wealth fund. We have a huge deficit, so the government would have to borrow all of that money. That debt will drive up prices and hand cash to rich corporate insiders. Instead of borrowing money to pick winners, the government should cut taxes and red tape so private businesses can build and invest.”
  • A repeated line

    “After 11 years of the Liberal government.”

    Said 25 times by 19 members since April 30.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

moved: That, given that, (i) sovereign wealth funds must have wealth that comes from budget surpluses and resource revenues, (ii) this government has run no surpluses, only deficits for the last 11 years and has no funds to invest, (iii) the Prime Minister is proposing to put his 25-billion-dollar fund on the national credit card, which will cause further inflationary pressure, (iv) the Prime Minister has already created 12 new Crown corporations, agencies and bureaucracies, (v) when government directs capital, it always goes to the politically powerful and not the deserving, (vi) there is over 1 trillion dollars in pension fund money that Liberals have pushed out of Canada that we could bring back with faster permits, lower taxes and free enterprise, (vii) the rising cost of fuel and food is already burdening hard working Canadians who cannot afford to pay more for handouts to Liberal insiders and corporate elites, therefore, the House call on the government to abandon this sovereign debt fund. He said: Mr. Speaker, today I am responding to the costly, gimmicky schemes of the Prime Minister, who now wants to put $25 billion on the national credit card to fund handouts for well-connected businesses, Liberal elites, and co-operative forces, all while increasing the cost of living for everyone: workers, small businesses, and seniors. We have seen that this Liberal government has already racked up 11 deficits on the national credit card. After a year of this Prime Minister, we are seeing higher costs, more debt, higher taxes, and more money on the credit card. He is just another Liberal. To have a sovereign wealth fund, there need to be funds. There are no funds because there is no surplus, unlike in Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Norway, and so on. These countries have surpluses every year, which they set aside as savings for their countries. They have no deficits. The Conservatives want to remove government barriers in order to attract private investment again, boost our economy and pay our bills through private production. That way, the cost of living will come down for Canadians who are already paying too much. That is how we will free up our economy and restore affordability. We will be strong at home and masters in our own house. Imagine someone went into their doctor’s office, and suddenly the doctor injected them with some strange substance. They asked what it was, and he said that it was a poison. They then asked why he had injected them with a poison. Immediately he pulled out another syringe and injected them with an antidote, and he said he did that so he could save their life with the antidote. They asked why he had done any of it in the first place, and they were told that he wanted to save their life because that is what he does. That is exactly how Liberal economics work. The Liberals do massive economic damage to our country, and then they claim to be its solution, its antidote. The government blocks homebuilding with taxes and red tape then sets up a fourth federal housing agency to subsidize housing. The Liberal Prime Minister blocks resource projects with high taxes, 19‑year permitting delays, and bans on oil shipping off the B.C. coast, and then he creates massive new offices to get projects built, which promise carve-outs, bail-outs and handouts to favourite businesses. The Prime Minister blocks investments with high taxes, drives $1.2 trillion of pension funds out of the country and then subsidizes investment with new corporate welfare programs. He drives up the cost of living and the cost of food with inflationary money printing, carbon taxes and red tape, then prints even more money to give people cash payments to help them with the cost of the food, which he inflated. He blocks development, taxes production, regulates investment, delays permits, drives capital away, kills projects and crushes builders. Then, when the economy slows down, the Prime Minister shows up with a subsidy, a fund, a bank, a summit, a task force and a photo op to solve the very problem he caused. Instead of just following the Hippocratic oath to do no harm, the government does plenty of harm and then claims that it provides the cure. Like the great Ronald Reagan said, if it moves, a Liberal taxes it. If it keeps moving, he regulates it, and when it stops moving, he subsidizes it. Why not just get out of the way and let things move? Why not let the builder build, the worker work, the investor invest, the farmer farm, the miner mine, the manufacturer manufacture and the trucker truck? It is because then there would be no role for the Liberal politician, no power, no control, no permit to authorize and no cheque to hand out. If people could just launch a business, produce resources, grow food and build homes, the Prime Minister and the people within his castle walls would be irrelevant. Instead he forces everything to go through him. He basically creates a regulatory prison and charges a ransom for anyone who wants to build something to get out of it. If they want a place to live or food in their stomach, they have to wait for the government to send back some of their money. If they want to build a home or a pipeline, they have to kneel before the king and seek his good graces. If they want investment for their enterprise, they have to bow before the state. State-controlled crony capitalism is how the Liberal Prime Minister enriched himself. In fact, his Brookfield investments profit off government favours that typically help a tiny group of politically powerful but unproductive takers at the expense of the great mass of productive makers. Help is the sunny side of control. It is the illusion of action from the people who caused the problem, the illusion of investment from the people who drove the investment away and the illusion of growth from those who blocked the growth because, in this Liberal model, the economy does not belong to the people; it belongs to the politicians, bureaucrats and other authorities who control it and the powers that influence them. The real debate in our economy today is that of a political economy versus a market economy. A political economy allocates wealth based on power. A market economy allocates wealth based on free choice. Enter the sovereign wealth fund, which has no wealth. It is another Liberal illusion. Countries with real sovereign wealth funds, such as Singapore, Norway, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, accumulate surpluses year after year, which they then squirrel away and invest to grow bigger returns for their people. The Liberal Prime Minister has no surplus to invest. In fact, the net equity of the government is negative $1.3 trillion. If we take all the assets and deduct all the liabilities, that is what is left. We call that our national debt. Just two days ago, the Prime Minister announced that he is running the 11th Liberal deficit, which is being put on the national credit card. There is more debt, more taxes and more costs on the credit card. The Prime Minister is just another Liberal. In fact, he has doubled the deficit since Trudeau left office, so he has no wealth to put into the wealth fund. He has something else: debt. He wants to put $25 billion more on our national credit card to invest in politically connected companies. Who will get the money? It is those with the political power. The Liberal Prime Minister plans to hold yet another summit, this time with multinational corporations and billionaires, to offer them access to government money and allow them to circumvent the brutal red tape and taxes he imposes on all other businesses. He will demand that these businesses, which will ultimately get permits to go ahead and get around the restrictive red tape and taxes, will give the government an ownership stake. It is almost like charging a ransom for letting them out of the regulatory prison he has created. The million or so small businesses without lobbyists will still be stuck in that regulatory prison, forced to pay taxes to subsidize their larger, more politically powerful competitors. It is the golden rule: Those with the gold make the rules. The small elite turns power into wealth, wealth back into more power and then more power back into more wealth. The cycle continues until they have it all. They get richer, making everyone else poorer. In a political economy, the elite profit not by having the best product, but by having the best lobbyists. It is not how much value they create for customers. It is how much influence they have over ministers, regulators, agencies and insiders. The most important commodities in the political economy are influence and power. In a market economy, people get ahead by serving the people. We sell a product only if someone wants to buy it. We hire a worker only if the worker freely chooses the job and the employer values the work. We attract investment only if we can prove that we can create more value tomorrow than we will consume today. That is the magic of the free market. People cannot get ahead without making someone else better off. We know that because they would not engage in the voluntary transaction if it did not make them better off. That is why, in a free market, when one buys something and says “thank you” to the vendor, the vendor often does not say “you are welcome”. They say “thank you” back. This is because the seller values the money more than what they sold and the buyer values the product more than what they paid. If someone wants an apple and has an orange, and I want an orange and have an apple, and we trade, we still have an apple and an orange between us, but we are both richer because each of us has something worth more to us than what we had before; thus the double “thank you” when we trade. By contrast, a state-controlled economy is based entirely on force. Everything the government does, it does by force because taxation is mandatory and not voluntary. That is why no one ever writes “thank you” on their tax form. The transaction was imposed. Even if it was a good transaction, it was not a free one. Free exchange allows work for wages, product for payment and investment for interest. It is free people making free choices and building a free country. By contrast, a government-controlled economy works differently. As I said, it operates by coercion, and in relationships of coercion, the strongest always win and the weakest always get crushed. The Prime Minister quoted Thucydides in his Davos speech, saying that the strong do what they will and the weak do what they must. The government taxes, regulates and blocks the productive economy, then uses our own money to create programs that promise to fix the damage it caused. This is not Robin Hood. It is the sheriff of Nottingham. It takes from the workers, builders, taxpayers and investors, running their money through bureaucracy, consultants, lobbyists and insiders, and lets a few drops trickle back down to the people who paid for it in the first place. This is state-controlled crony capitalism, a system where government concentrates money in fewer hands based on power, and where most businesses and citizens never have the political clout needed to get a meeting, win a carve-out, secure a subsidy or escape that regulatory prison. Make no mistake, regulatory prison is what it is. If someone wants to build a mine or a pipeline, they must wait. If they want to build a home, they must wait. If they want to build a port, a road, a transmission line, a factory, a terminal, a refinery or a railway, they must wait, fill out the forms, hire consultants, lobby a minister, please the regulator and win some political influence. Maybe they will then have a chance. After years of delay, they might get government support, as the Prime Minister likes to call it. If a project is good enough to receive regulatory support, why not just approve it in the first place? Why should a company have to win over a politician to get something built? Why should a project have to give up a piece of its ownership to the state in order to escape the prison of heavy regulations? This is the model the Liberal Prime Minister believes in, and that is because it is the model that enriched him in the first place, not by doing business in the marketplace, but by using political power to get favours for his company. We remember that the Prime Minister pushed for heat pump subsidies. Well, Brookfield sells heat pumps. We remember that he pushed for money-printing inflation. Well, the CEO of Brookfield confirmed on May 20 of last year that Brookfield profits off of inflation, saying, “many of our things are regulated, rate-based or contractual in nature, and inflation is actually a positive to the numbers, so as inflation comes in, it actually helps the revenue streams of those businesses”. The Prime Minister said a little over a year ago that he had successfully lobbied for a more expensive form of so-called sustainable aviation fuel right before Brookfield, his company, invested a billion dollars in that same fuel, forcing Canadian passengers to pay higher airline fees for this more pricey fuel, which his company then profited from. This is not business; this is political manipulation. It raises the cost for everyone, especially those who do not have political power. That is the difference between the real economy and the protected economy. In the real economy, inflation crushes families. It raises grocery bills. It raises rent and mortgage payments. It costs people more for gas, heat and electricity. It shuts young people out of home ownership and starting families. In a political economy, inflation can be used as a revenue tool for elites and schemers. The government creates the rule. The rule creates the market. The insider sees the rule coming. The insider invests, and the consumer pays the politically connected profit. Everyone else is told that this is progress. Canadians will pay the price through higher inflation at the grocery store, taxes on their paycheques and debt interest for future generations. We have seen this movie before. I just mentioned that there is going to be a big summit where a whole series of multinationals and billionaires will come and feast on this $25 billion. This is not a new idea. In 2016, the Liberal government hosted another international summit of investors at a Shangri‑La hotel to unveil the Infrastructure Bank, a $45‑billion pot of gold that went to subsidizing the investments of insiders. Here we are, 10 years later, and a Liberal government is holding the same kind of summit to allow the same elites to feast on the same debt. Since the creation of the Infrastructure Bank, it has lost hundreds of millions of dollars. For its first seven years, its investment income failed to cover even its operating costs. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that, when all levels of government were included, two out of every three dollars used for projects funded by the bank came from the taxpayer, not from businesses. Taxpayers lost and insiders won. The bank spent a quarter of a billion dollars on operations. The CEO makes $600,000 a year. It paid out $8 million in bonuses in one year. That is why a parliamentary committee studied it thoroughly and recommended it be eliminated. Now, instead of doing that, the Liberals are augmenting it with yet another slush fund. Then, in September of 2024, the then Liberal finance minister Chrystia Freeland pledged to create a Canada growth fund, seeded with taxpayers’ dollars, to try to bring back the $1.2 trillion of pension funds that the Liberal government had driven abroad. Who was tapped to administer that fund? It was Brookfield. That was barely two years ago, and here we go again. There is another summit, another fund, another transition office and another name for the same old Liberal idea. There is an illusion of change, but the reality is that it is more of the same. Desjardins wrote that the proposed fund draws strong parallels to the Infrastructure Bank. The Montreal Economic Institute called it “essentially the Canadian Infrastructure Bank under a different name.” It is the same poison with a new label, more costs, more corruption, more debt, more taxes and more on the credit card. The Liberal Prime Minister is just another Liberal. We have seen how we can build wealth when we unlock the power of the free enterprise system. The answer is not to weigh the economy down with even more government agencies on top of the countless number that already existed a year ago, and the 13 new ones that the Prime Minister has since created. We need to unblock and unlock the potential of our resources and our people. The answer is more economic freedom, such as the freedom to build, to produce, to hire, to invest and to compete. We must replace an economy of carve-outs, handouts and bailouts for insiders with free choice, opportunity and affordability. If a project is safe, lawful and in the national interest, just approve it. If a company can build without taxpayers’ money, let it build now. If workers can build bigger paycheques by producing energy, minerals, food, homes, steel, aluminum, copper and more, we need to get the government out of the way and let them do it. Let businesses compete for customers, not political favour. Let entrepreneurs win with the best product, not the best lobbyists. Let workers earn a powerful paycheque, not wait for government handouts. Let Canadians build sovereign wealth, not borrow sovereign debt. This is the choice: state-controlled crony capitalism, where political influence becomes the most valuable commodity, or a free market where work, savings, risk-taking and service create prosperity for everyone. The options are a top-down, state-controlled, crony capitalist system or a bottom-up, merit-based, free enterprise system. A political aristocracy or an economic meritocracy is the choice. We want this to be a country that restores the promise to the people that anyone who works hard can enjoy an affordable home, a safe street, good food on the table and realize their dreams. We want a country where our people get ahead by having the best product and the best work, not by having the most political influence. We do not want a country of bureaucrats and busybodies, of gatekeepers and grifters, of tax collectors and toll masters. We want a country of artists and adventurers, entrepreneurs and explorers, workers and warriors, pioneers and patriots. That is the country we seek to build. Now, let us get to building.

Oral Questions ·

Finance

“The Prime Minister has been wrong about the economy for ten years. His choices on taxes, oil, and spending make life cost more for Canadians. I want him to admit his mistakes.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this Liberal Prime Minister has been wrong about every major economic issue of the last decade. He was wrong to push for bigger and broader carbon taxes, wrong to say that we should leave 50% of our oil in the ground, wrong to oppose the northern gateway pipeline, wrong to say COVID would lead to deflation, wrong to say money printing would not raise the cost and wrong to say that affordability is the best that it has been in a decade. He keeps getting it wrong. Yesterday, he repeated the same mistakes. When will he realize that the more he gets it wrong, the more the Canadian people have to pay?

“The Liberals said borrowing more money would help the economy, but Canada now has the worst growth, the highest housing costs, and the most debt in the G7. The Prime Minister is making the same mistakes with more debt and higher taxes. Will he admit that Canadians are paying for this?”
  • 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, these Liberals are like the Bourbon dynasty: They learn nothing, and they forget nothing. Over the last decade, they told us that if we racked up the credit card, somehow it would grow the economy. What did we get? We got the worst growth in the G7, the highest housing costs in the G7, the worst household debt in in the G7 and the worst investment per worker in the G7. Now, it is déjà vu all over again with the Prime Minister repeating exactly the same policies: more debt, more costs, more taxes. He is just another Liberal. Will the Prime Minister recognize that Canadians are paying for his mistakes?

“The Prime Minister planned for a $31-billion deficit this year, but yesterday he announced a $65-billion deficit instead. The government is spending too much money and mismanaging the country's finances.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the deficit Justin Trudeau had provided for this year was $31 billion. Yesterday, the Liberal Prime Minister provided a deficit of $65 billion, and 65 is bigger than 31. I will speak slowly for the Liberal mathematicians on the other side of the House. As The Globe and Mail said, “In the upside-down land of the Liberals, a spending spree is a spending cut, blowing a windfall of billions of dollars is prudent and failing to prepare for a fiscal storm is, well, just good management.”

“The Prime Minister has doubled the deficit. He is adding more debt and taxes, and families now pay $3,000 each just for the interest. Will the government stop spending so much?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is just that the Liberal Prime Minister has gone from writing Justin Trudeau’s policies to plagiarizing his talking points. Actually, that is not fair to Justin Trudeau. This Liberal Prime Minister has done the impossible: He has doubled the deficit that Trudeau left behind. There is more cost, more debt, more taxes, more on the national credit card and more interest payments for Canadians. Once again, with Canadians spending $3,000 per family on interest for the debt, is there any limit on the Liberal credit card?

“The Prime Minister has doubled the deficit and caused high food prices. Canada is now spending $60 billion on debt interest, which is more than we spend on health care. I want to know why.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, he just stole Justin Trudeau’s talking points, although he has doubled Mr. Trudeau’s deficit. Not only has this Prime Minister left Canadians with the worst food inflation in the G7, but his costly credit card budget is forcing Canadian families to pay $60 billion in interest on our debt. That is more than the government spends on health care and more than it collects in GST. Canadians are paying more to bankers than they are to nurses and doctors. Why?