Sandra Cobena

“The Prime Minister defends government debt by counting over one trillion dollars of Canadians' pension money against it. I want him to answer yes or no: does he plan to use Canadians' pensions to pay off government debt?”

“Mr. Speaker, there is something very dangerous about how the Prime Minister is defending the outrageous amount of debt he has taken on. He says that it is not so bad because of Canada’s net debt position, but what he does not tell Canadians is that that calculation subtracts over $1 trillion of Canadians’ pension assets. I have a very simple question for the Prime Minister: Does he intend to use Canadians’ pensions to pay his Liberal debt, yes or no?”

“The Prime Minister is adding more debt in five years than all past prime ministers combined. His spending made interest rates go up, which makes this debt cost even more. I want him to explain who will pay it back and how.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised to move at speeds not seen in generations, but Canadians did not realize that what he meant was accumulating debt at speeds not seen in generations. In five years, he plans to add more debt than all prime ministers before Justin Trudeau combined. Today, because of the Liberals’ inflationary spending, the Bank of Canada has raised interest rates, making government debt even more expensive. Can the Prime Minister explain who will repay this mountain of debt and how?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “The Bank of Canada has raised rates.”

  Said 3 times by 2 members since October 28.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Garnett Genuis

“We should help skilled immigrants work in their fields, and professionals support this idea. We also need to support small and medium businesses because they give young people their first jobs.”

“Mr. Speaker, in the last election, we were very clear that part of the solution is the blue seal program so highly-trained immigrants could practise in their field of expertise. In speaking to a number of professionals, I have heard nothing but good feedback on that. On the topic of young Canadians, their first job, that entry-level job they are looking for, their first opportunity, is oftentimes created by small businesses and medium-sized businesses. We need to support them as well.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Carlos Leitão

“I want the House to approve this report because it offers simple ways to fix the job skills shortage. Government and businesses need to work together to give students training and entry-level jobs. I also urge every member to set up a youth advisory council to hear directly from young people.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an incredibly important question, and I am a firm believer that we will come up with the best policies when industry and government work close together to find the right policies. In speaking to young people, they want to be part of the solution. I would encourage every member of the House to create a youth advisory council and get recommendations from youth themselves. In speaking to businesses as well, I have learned that they often find a mismatch for the skills needed for a particular job, which is why training and entry-level experience is important for students. When we bring both parties, including the people who are part of the solution, to the table to have a discussion, we will have a better outcome in terms of policies. This report actually has some very simple solutions that would help ease the problem.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the government to agree to this committee report. Young people face a jobs crisis. The government should cut taxes and rules so businesses can hire again. It should link immigration to available jobs and homes. It should also bring back grants for apprentices, fund work placements, and help workers find homes they can afford.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Bowmanville—Oshawa North. Today’s debate is about whether young Canadians have a fair chance to get started in life. Too many young Canadians are sending out resumes and knocking on doors, but every day, they are finding that no one is calling them back and no one is hiring them. How are they supposed to build a future if they cannot get their first chance? I have a youth advisory council, and its members said to me that they feel as though they are on a bus that is driven by someone who does not look back to ask where the passengers want to go. All they can do is sit on the bus and look out the window. This is quite telling, but I have a message to these young Canadians: They deserve a seat on the bus, and they deserve to have a say as to where the bus is headed. Members of the House believe that their contributions, their insights as to what policies are best to help them are incredibly valuable. Let us imagine spending our last year of school looking forward to graduating, only to face months of unanswered job applications. The latest labour force survey shows that Canada lost 68,000 jobs in September alone, following another 42,000 lost in August. That is 110,000 fewer jobs in just two months. Youth unemployment stood at 13%. Employment among young Canadians aged 15 to 24 fell by 48,000 people in September alone. Let us think about the student who needs shifts in order to pay for school, or a graduate who keeps sending out résumés while the student loan payments are coming due. For young people, it often means putting off buying a home or starting a family. Young couples are putting their lives on hold. After months of unanswered applications, it is hard not to lose confidence. This is being felt close to home as well. York Region reports that the average monthly number of people receiving employment insurance rose by more than 56% between 2023 and 2025. That is 56% more families trying to pay their bills while also looking for work. The region’s review also found that although new job postings increased between December 2024 and December 2025, the share offering full-time work fell from 84% to 75%. Finding a posting and finding enough dependable work to pay one’s bills are two very different things. Young people should have the chance to save, become independent and build a future in their own community. I was door knocking in my riding of Newmarket—Aurora and met a young welder who was living in his parents’ basement. He said that he makes a good living but still cannot afford to buy a house. He wants to be independent. He wants to start his life, but he does not want to have to live two to three hours away from his parents. He wants to stay close to home and build a family in his own community, but it is nearly impossible for him to do that today. As a mother, I want my children to have that chance of building a future here in Canada. As a member of Parliament, I want every young person in Newmarket—Aurora and across this country to have that chance as well. A young Canadian cannot get a job at a business that cannot afford to hire one. That is why an employment plan has to address the costs facing the people who create those jobs. A small business owner has to make payroll every month before hiring another person. They need to know that they can afford to pay them. If the government wants young Canadians to be working, it needs to make it easier to open a business, to build a project or to hire another employee. The committee’s first recommendation calls for reducing taxes and red tape. Conservatives have proposed a youth jobs plan that starts with getting the economy moving by repealing antiresource laws, reducing taxes that discourage reinvestment and removing the red tape that is holding back homebuilding and business growth. We want businesses investing in Canada, taking on more work and hiring our people to do it. The report also calls on the government to consider jobs and housing when setting immigration levels, and to help qualified newcomers work in the field they have expertise in. We should not be inviting someone here with professional qualifications only to leave them unable to work in their profession. It is also unfair to young people when the government fails to consider how many entry-level jobs and homes are actually available. A young person looking for their first job and a newcomer trying to use their qualifications both deserve a fair chance to contribute and to build a career. The government needs to plan around the jobs and housing available and to work with the provinces to get qualified people working in their field. We also have to make sure that training leads to work. Young people put years into their education. Many take on debt, and many have their family make sacrifices to help them. Recommendation 10 calls for training funding to go to programs that actually help young people find work. If a program is not delivering, the government should not put money in that program but should direct that money to the program where it will give someone a better chance of getting hired. Our plan would give students more financial help if they choose to study in a field where employers need workers. That means looking at actual job market data and helping young Canadians train for jobs that need to be filled. Young Canadians also keep hearing that they need experience to get their first job. How are they supposed to get experience if they do not get a chance in the first place? The report recommends more student work placements and stable funding for the student work placement program, a program I benefited from when I was in university, in fact. That would help students get experience with an employer while they are still in school so they have something on their résumé when they graduate. Another recommendation suggests bringing back grants that help apprentices pay for their training. If we need more electricians, carpenters or plumbers, we must ensure that the young people entering those trades can finish the training. However, even with the right training and a job offer, there is another layer of complication, another challenge, which is to find somewhere to live. If a young person is willing to move for work but cannot find a home they can afford, how are they supposed to take the job? The report recommends studying a tax write-off for employers that build housing for their workers. My children are little, and I do not know where life will take them in terms of their careers, but I want them to know that they can build a good life here in the country we love, Canada. Young Canadians should be able to look forward to their future instead of wondering whether they will ever be able to afford it. The report gives the government clear recommendations it can act on now to make it easier for businesses to hire, help students get work experience, support apprentices through their training and help workers find housing where the jobs are. Young Canadians should be able to build a future in the country they call home. They are willing to work for it. it is time the government stopped making it harder for them.”

In response to a question from Amarjeet Gill

“I spent 15 years working with business loans, and debt can be very risky. The government is hiding how much debt we really have by putting it in Crown corporations. We cannot make good financial choices when we cannot see the full picture.”

“Madam Speaker, I was a commercial lender for 15 years. I worked with debt and loans, and there is a certain level of sustainability that has to be considered. Debt can be very risky. Right now, we have a government that is, in fact, hiding the true amount of debt. The Liberals are hiding it in Crown corporations. When we cannot see the full picture, how can good decisions be made? A business owner will tell us that they need reliable financial statements to make decisions, and we do not have that in our country’s finances.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“Government spending is out of control. Our fastest-growing cost is interest on the debt, which is at $83 billion. Working Canadians pay for this interest. We cannot keep ignoring this debt and spending.”

“Madam Speaker, it is, of course, important to look at the full equation when we are looking at the country’s finances. Revenues are important. We need to continue to generate revenues, but what we are seeing right now is that expenses are out of control. More importantly, the interest expense is the fastest-growing expense on the books, at $83 billion in interest. This interest has to be serviced. Ultimately, it has to be paid, and it is paid by dollars taken from hard-working Canadians. We cannot continue down this trajectory of ignoring the spending and ignoring the debt and how the debt is going to be repaid.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“Credit rating agencies have warned the government about its rising debt. Our debt compared to our economy will get worse over the next five years. The government needs to admit it is borrowing too much money and share a real plan to pay it back.”

“Madam Speaker, I would encourage the member to understand how those credit ratings are issued. If the member remembers, in the last budget, there was a warning from Fitch Ratings to the federal government about the amount of debt it was incurring, because it dropped the fiscal anchor that measures debt, which is the debt-to-GDP ratio. For a rating to be maintained, the debt-to-GDP ratio must be maintained. What are we seeing? It will be getting worse over the next five years. Members from the Liberal government continuously stand up in the House and say that they will take no lessons from the Conservatives. Well, perhaps they can take a lesson from the cold, hard math, and the math is not looking good. I would encourage the member to take a sobering stand, recognize that there is a problem with the amount of borrowing the government is taking on and provide a credible plan to repay it.”

“The Prime Minister plans to borrow $733 billion over five years. Paying the interest on this debt will cost billions that could go to health care or tax cuts. Life is getting harder for Canadians, and food bank visits are at record highs. I want the Prime Minister to come to the finance committee to explain his plan to stop this spending and lower the debt.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Cloverdale—Langley City. Today we are speaking about a motion before the House that is quite timely, because the Prime Minister’s government is projected to borrow $733 billion in five years. That is more than the total debt accumulated by every prime minister in Canadian history before Justin Trudeau. It is also more than the debt added during Prime Minister Trudeau’s ten years in government, years that included a once-in-a-century global pandemic. What took generations of prime ministers to accumulate, the current Prime Minister plans to borrow in just five years. This is an extraordinary pace of borrowing, and it is mortgaging our children’s future, but what do Canadians have to show for all this borrowing and all this spending? Our economic growth forecast has been downgraded to just 0.9% this year. We have a record 2.4 million visits at food banks in a single month, and one in three is for a child. Millions of Canadians are struggling to afford the most basic necessities. Meanwhile, the fastest-growing expense for the federal government is not defence, not infrastructure and not health care. It is interest on the national debt. How sad is that? There are billions of dollars that cannot be spent on health care, infrastructure or lowering taxes for hard-working Canadians. By 2030, the government is projected to spend approximately $83 billion a year just to service the national debt. What is the government’s plan to bring this under control? There is no plan. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that the federal debt-to-GDP ratio will rise over the next five years. That means that our debt burden is growing rather than shrinking, and it is in fact growing faster than our economy is growing. That is why we are calling on the Prime Minister to appear before the finance committee to answer a very simple question: What is his plan to reduce the deficit spending, bring debt interest under control, deliver tax relief for Canadians and bring the debt under control? Let me ask a question. What would we do if our household debt were spiralling out of control? Would we change the way we measure our debt? Would we start calling our everyday expenses investments? Would we move some of our borrowing onto another credit card and tell our family that our finances were improving? No, of course we would not, but that is precisely the kind of fiscal manipulation we are seeing from the Prime Minister. He built his reputation on his financial credentials. Canadians were told they could trust him to manage our country’s finances responsibly, but look at what has happened. The debt-to-GDP ratio is no longer the government’s primary fiscal anchor. Every other serious country around the world uses this fiscal anchor, but the Prime Minister has shredded it and made up one of his own. He redefined operating expenses under a broader capital investment framework, allowing spending traditionally treated as operating expenses to be treated as capital investments. There is the borrowing, hundreds of billions of dollars in loans, Crown corporation financing and other financial transactions, that adds to federal borrowing requirements without increasing the reported deficit by the same amount. In other words, the Prime Minister can borrow as much as he would like, and the fiscal anchor he has chosen will never be tripped. Then, the government turns around and tells Canadians that it is on the path to balancing the operating budget. Is that not convenient? Here is what Canadians need to understand. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, over five years, the government is projected to run $333 billion in deficits, but borrow $733 billion. That is a difference of $400 billion. Much of that difference relates to loans, Crown corporation financing and other financial assets. Loans are recorded as assets because there is an expectation that those loans will, of course, be repaid. Let us take the example of Canada Post, a Crown corporation that has loans given by the federal government. It has not reported an annual profit since 2017, and it has accumulated billions of dollars in losses. That raises a very obvious question: How confident can taxpayers be that all government loans will be fully repaid? With the government expanding its use of Crown corporations and other financing vehicles for defence, housing and investment initiatives, Canadians deserve full transparency about the borrowing, liabilities and financial risk involved. Moving borrowing into a different part of the government’s accounts does not make the financial obligations disappear. Here is what makes this even more concerning. The International Monetary Fund has called for greater clarity and independent verification of the government’s fiscal framework. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has warned that the government’s new fiscal anchors provide very little discipline on borrowing. The PBO has made one thing absolutely clear: Balancing the operating budget does not mean that the government’s finances are balanced. Here we have a Prime Minister who built his reputation on financial expertise, asking Canadians to trust him while adopting fiscal measures that provide an incomplete picture of our growing borrowing requirements. Fiscal responsibility is not about how we cleverly present the numbers. It is about whether we can actually control the debt and spending. Changing the accounting does not change the bill that Canadians will ultimately have to pay. On that note, $83 billion in interest means $6,000 per Canadian household just to service the debt. That is $6,000 in taxes just to service the debt. That does not include the repayment of the debt. That is why the Prime Minister must come before committee, answer these questions, explain how he intends to restore fiscal discipline, and present a credible plan for the repayment of the debt so we can bring this amount of debt under control. What concerns me even more than the debt is what all the government spending has actually delivered for Canadians. I judge the success of a government by a very simple measure. Can Canadians build a good life for themselves and their families? Can a young couple afford their first home? Can parents afford to raise their children? Can seniors retire with dignity? Can an honest day’s work still provide a decent standard of living? That is how we should measure success. Today, millions of Canadians are struggling to do precisely those things. We have a record of 2.4 million food bank visits in a single month, and one-third involve children. Let us think about what that says about the state of our country’s finances. This is Canada, one of the wealthiest, most resource-rich nations on earth, yet we have parents working hard, sometimes at multiple jobs, who still cannot afford to put food on the table for their children. We have a moral obligation to help those in need, of course. When someone falls on hard times, when a family faces hardships or when a senior cannot make ends meet, we should stand with them. However, we also have a moral obligation to ask why so many Canadians need that assistance in the first place. Why are millions struggling to afford basic groceries? This is not normal, and we must never accept it as normal. What troubles me is that the Liberals seem to celebrate the number of people receiving government benefits as evidence of their success. I believe they are measuring the wrong thing. I do not want to celebrate how many Canadians depend on government assistance. I want to celebrate how many Canadians no longer need it.”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“We must get our troops the equipment they need quickly. But the Prime Minister makes buying decisions on his own without asking the military. This bill does not hold him accountable, and that puts our troops at risk.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree entirely. The priority here is to make sure that equipment is delivered to our troops, that this is done efficiently and fast and that it meets the requirements they need. Unfortunately, what we have seen so far is that the Prime Minister has taken unilateral decisions without necessarily consulting the military on procurement decisions and appointing companies. This bill would not provide any certainty that there will be transparency or, ultimately, accountability for those decisions. At the end of the day, it is our troops and our military, the people who protect us, who will be at risk.”

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“The government wants us to pass this bill without asking questions. Our budget watchdog warned that the Prime Minister is hiding debt in government corporations, and he seems ready to keep doing it. We need real answers.”

“Mr. Speaker, the member says that the Conservative Party is trying to find an excuse to vote against this bill. The reality is that the Liberal government wants to hand over a bill for us to blindly approve. Canadians sent us here to ask questions and get answers, answers we unfortunately do not often get. The issue with Crown corporations was clearly laid out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. She is non-partisan. This is an independent body reviewing our country’s books, and she has raised alarms about the amount of debt the Prime Minister is hiding in Crown corporations. He seems to want to continue to do the same.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  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 →
• 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 bill. The government is wasting time reorganizing offices instead of buying our military the equipment it needs. This bill creates a government-owned company so the minister can make political choices and hide debt from Parliament. We want clear accountability, full financial transparency, and fast delivery of equipment to our troops.”

“Mr. Speaker, our soldiers need equipment quickly, yet the government has spent the last year trying to decide how to organize the bureaucracy responsible for buying it. After 11 years of Liberal government, our sailors, soldiers and aviators are still being asked to make do with aging equipment while they wait for replacements, and they continue to do their jobs. They deserve a government that will do its job too. Last October, the Liberals created the Defence Investment Agency. Canadians were told it would cut red tape and get equipment to our Forces faster. A few months later, the government decided the agency needed to become a stand-alone entity. It brought forward legislation in the spring. Now before that legislation is even completed, Bill C-40 proposes turning it into a Crown corporation. For Canadians unfamiliar with that, a Crown corporation is a government-owned company that has its own board executives, such as Canada Post and Via Rail. That is a lot of time spent reorganizing an agency that was supposed to save time. Why did an agency inside a department not work? Why is the proposal for a stand-alone agency already being replaced? What exactly would a Crown corporation fix that the Liberals could not get right the first two times? The government should answer those questions before asking Parliament to approve another restructuring. Conservatives have called for one clear point of accountability, with a dedicated secretariat in the Privy Council Office so that military purchases receive priority at the cabinet table. We want decisions made, contracts moving and, most of all, equipment delivered. Canadians should be able to identify who is responsible and hold that person accountable for the results. The Liberals keep changing their minds about who should buy the equipment, while troops are still expected to do their jobs without it. They cannot put their duties on hold while the government figures out how to do its job. After 11 years, they deserve a government that can get them what they need and do so without delay. The government keeps restructuring its defence agency rather than delivering equipment to our soldiers. The Defence Investment Agency was created to get military equipment purchased and delivered faster, but here we are, a year later, and it has yet to deliver a single piece of new equipment to our armed forces, so the government’s response is to restructure it again. Under Bill C-40, the minister could direct the corporation to carry out an activity, stop an activity or carry it out in a particular way. The legislation states “the Corporation must do as the Minister directs”. Canadians should understand what that means. What is the point of having a board and a chief executive if that cannot prevent the minister from directing what the corporation does? More importantly, where does that leave the military’s advice? What safeguards ensure that purchasing decisions follow operational requirements rather than political priorities? Our pilots need aircraft that can carry out their missions, much like our sailors need ships equipped for the conditions they face, so before any politician announces any supplier, our military’s requirements should be established. The concerns surrounding GlobalEye, an airborne surveillance system, show why this matters. There have been questions about whether the Royal Canadian Air Force’s requirements were even properly considered before the government announced its preferred supplier. Conservatives have asked the Auditor General and Parliamentary Budget Officer to examine that decision. The people who will operate this equipment understand what the job requires. They are also the ones who face the consequences if the government buys something that falls short. They should never be left trying to make announcements work after the decisions have been made. Before the government asks for broader powers, it needs to answer for the results. What has the agency delivered? What has it accelerated? How would military requirements be protected when the minister could tell the corporation what to do? Our troops need a procurement system that not only answers to their operational needs, but also makes them the priority, always. The government is hiding its debt in Crown corporations, as confirmed by the most recent PBO report; relabelling operating expenses as investments; and shredding fiscal anchors. That is what we are seeing at the Ministry of Defence. The Liberals are creating a Crown corporation to shelter military spending from parliamentary scrutiny and public visibility. Moving spending into a Crown corporation does not make it free. Canadians still carry the cost, and they still carry the risk. Let us look at Canada Post. The government made more than $1 billion in repayable funding available in 2025, and then announced another $1-billion funding package this year to keep it solvent and operating. This funding is not added to the deficit; it is labelled as an asset on the financial books. Does anyone think Canada Post will repay its debt? It is highly unlikely. It has not turned a profit since 2017, and it has lost about $5.3 billion. Calling funding “repayable” does not answer the question taxpayers should be asking: How confident are we that we will get that money back? Just last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that loans and advances to enterprise corporations reached $141.5 billion in 2025. That is nearly three times the 2016 level: $51 billion in 2016, compared to $141 billion in 2025. This matters because the government borrows money, lends it to a Crown corporation and records it as a financial asset. Money it expects to recover is recorded as an asset, when in fact it is a highly unlikely scenario that it will be recovered. Canadians still owe the debt the government took on to provide that loan, so recording an asset does not make the borrowing disappear. Taxpayers still have to service that debt, and they remain exposed if the loan is not repaid. Bill C-40 would create another Crown corporation with powers to make loans, provide guarantees and buy shares in companies. Having spent 15 years in commercial banking, I know that a loan is only as sound as the borrower’s ability to repay it. One needs to understand their financial position and account for the possibility of a loss. Canadians deserve that same discipline from their government. What is this corporation financing? How will the risks be assessed? If repayment becomes doubtful, when and how will that be reflected in the government’s books? Parliament and the Parliamentary Budget Officer need enough information to follow the money and assess the exposure independently. The same accountability must apply to contracts. Bill C-40 would give the government broad grounds to bypass competitive bidding. It should have to explain which exception it used, why it was necessary and how it established the value for money. Conservatives want regular reporting to Parliament and clear answers about which Treasury Board safeguards would apply to this three-times restructured defence procurement agency. If a contract goes over budget or if an investment loses money, somebody must answer for it. Canadians should not be passed from a minister to a chief executive to a board, with everybody pointing somewhere else. Canadians deserve to know where their money is going and who will answer for it. Our troops deserve the equipment they were promised. They have kept their word to keep Canada safe. After 11 years, it is time the government keeps its word to them too.”

“The Prime Minister is hiding the country's true debt, including 300 billion dollars in Crown corporations. Taxpayers have to pay all this borrowed money back. I want the Prime Minister to tell us how he plans to pay off this debt.”

“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is acting like a gambler hiding his debts from his family. He hides $300 billion of debt in Crown corporations and call it an asset. He calls $19 billion in subsidies and tax credits an investment. He shreds the debt-to-GDP ratio and invents a new one. Every dollar the Liberal government borrows must ultimately be paid back, and it is paid back with dollars earned by and taken from hard-working Canadians. When will the Prime Minister stop playing accounting games and tell us how he is going to repay his credit card budget?”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Opposition question in Question Period

  Respect 56 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “acting like a gambler hiding his debts from his family”.

  See full analysis →