Business of Supply

The debate focused on government spending, the national debt, and the rising cost of living in relation to Government Orders. The government defended its fiscal policies by citing Canada’s strong AAA credit rating and highlighting investments in affordability measures and essential programs, while opposition members countered that growing debt and interest payments pose risks to social services and are driving up the cost of living. Some members also questioned the government about economic stability given external factors like tariffs and expressed concern over debt warnings issued by credit rating agencies. Consequently, members of the opposition called on the Prime Minister to appear before the Finance Committee to explain his plan for spending and deficit reduction.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

105 statements

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“Giving billions of dollars to oil companies is one reason the government has a big deficit. I want the member to say if those subsidies should continue.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the factors making the deficit so big is the billions of dollars in subsidies that have been handed out to oil companies. Does my colleague think that this type of subsidy should continue?

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative

Linked statement

“The government is not handing out cash subsidies to oil and gas companies. Instead, its bad policies chased away private money for the Trans Mountain pipeline and built it with public money at huge cost overruns. I oppose the government picking projects and using tax dollars to build them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 97 of 100

    Of this reply, 96% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Bloc members always raise this. I think they are quite confused about what a subsidy is. The government, for all of its misgivings and all of the terrible policy that it has, is not squandering Canadian tax dollars on subsidizing oil and gas, other than its failed and failing approach to project development. It took a pipeline like Trans Mountain that would have been built by private investors, chased the private investment out of the country, and built it at the public expense at about a 500% cost overrun. I do oppose that style of policy-making. The problem with this government is that its entire approach to industrial policy is to cherry-pick projects and use the power of public money behind construction.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“The Trans Mountain pipeline would never have been built without our government's help. The Conservatives never built a single inch of pipeline to the west coast when they were in power. Our government works with the provinces to get major projects built, and the Conservatives should admit that.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 45 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, to pick up on what the member just said, TMX would not have happened had the government not been directly engaged in building that pipeline. I can understand why Conservatives are confused, because the Conservative Party, while in government, did not even build an inch of pipeline to to the west coast. It took a Liberal administration to do that, just like it has taken a Liberal administration to have LNG and this particular Prime Minister for LNG phase two to be among the numerous major projects in progress today in every region of our country. Will the member now recognize the value of a proactive government working in collaboration with provinces to build projects?

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“The Liberals want credit for building the pipeline, but they are the ones who broke the project in the first place. They changed the rules and refused to support it, which drove the original company away and forced the government to buy it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always entertaining to listen to the Liberals talk about something they broke and then demand extraordinary recognition for their attempts to put things back together. They chased Kinder Morgan out of Canada. They chased it out by moving the goalposts and refusing to champion the approvals that existed and then afterwards want enormous credit for nationalizing that project although they had forced the proponent out.

John Brassard, Barrie South—Innisfil

Conservative
“I want the House to pass this motion to make the Prime Minister answer questions at a committee. Government spending has gotten worse, and our debt is growing fast. Families are paying thousands of dollars just on debt interest while food bank use is way up. The Prime Minister needs to explain our country's finances in detail.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith, there is a famous scene where Obi-Wan Kenobi is on the high ground and Anakin Skywalker, who eventually becomes Darth Vader, is getting burned. In that scene, Obi-Wan says to Anakin, “You were the chosen one.” He says, “You were supposed to bring balance to the Force. You were not supposed to join the Sith. You were supposed to defeat them.” Well, in April 2025, the Prime Minister billed himself as the chosen one. He was supposed to bring balance to our fiscal force. He was going to spend less, and things were going to improve. Things have done anything but improve in this country. In fact, I would suggest that they have gotten a lot worse under the Prime Minister in terms of fiscal mismanagement. We have had two PBOs, the previous one and this one, who have sounded the alarm on the state of the country’s fiscal finances, and the most recent report should cause anyone to pause. For anyone who has kids, anyone who has grandchildren or great-grandchildren, it should cause great concern about the direction this country is heading in terms of fiscal mismanagement. Frankly, what concerns me, not just as a parliamentarian but as a father, is that my kids will be picking up the scattered pieces of what is left economically in this country after the Prime Minister and the Liberal government are done with it. The alarm was sounded by the latest Parliamentary Budget Officer. Members will recall that the Liberals were not happy with some of the things the previous Parliamentary Budget Officer was reporting to Canadians. He referred to the state of our finances as “stupefying”. The current Parliamentary Budget Officer has picked up where the previous one left off and has raised the alarms in a great way in this country. The latest fiscal update from the Parliamentary Budget Officer goes like this. The interest on the debt this year is going to be $59.3 billion, which is more than we send to the provinces for health care transfers. She went on to say that by 2030-31, the interest on the debt is going to be $83 billion. This means that an average family of four in this country is going to be paying $6,000 on the debt this year, and that is going to rise to $8,000. This is money that could be put in people’s pockets. It could be put toward the health of their children through sports programs or better nutrition. We are seeing food banks in this country reporting that millions and millions of people a month are going to the food bank. Many of them are working-class Canadians who cannot afford the necessities of life anymore. It is not just the deficit that is a problem. Cumulatively, over the next five years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said, the level of debt is expected to increase by $732.9 billion. That is $732.9 billion added to the already existing debt. The only ones who make money off this are the bondholders and the bankers. With the interest that is paid on that debt, and in some of the examples I gave earlier, this is just what those numbers are going to look like. This motion calls on the Prime Minister to not stand in the House for 35-second questions when he is here. It calls on the Prime Minister to stand before a parliamentary committee and answer questions about the state of the finances in this country, which has been created by government spending and by programs that have gone to well-connected insiders, and to answer questions about Alto, questions about foreign aid and questions about why Canadians are in such bad shape when he said and made a promise to them in April 2025 that he was going to make things better. These are very simple questions that need to be asked, not in 35-second sound bites in this place, but before a parliamentary committee so we can have a fulsome discussion about the state of finances in this country for Canadians to be made aware, truthfully and honestly, of the state of their finances and what it means to the future of this country and the future of their kids and grandkids, who, like I said earlier, are going to be picking up the scattered pieces of what is left of this country after these Liberals are done with it financially. There is a budget coming up November 5, and it is curious to me why it is being presented on a Thursday afternoon. I have been here 11 years, and I have never seen a budget presented on a Thursday afternoon. Typically, budgets take place on Tuesday afternoon. There is then a full opportunity for opposition members to call into question some of the issues related to the budget, but this is happening on November 5 of this year, a Thursday afternoon. This means that Friday, which is generally a reduced session, will be the only period we have to ask questions about the budget, and then we are back in our ridings for the week of Remembrance Day. I think the purpose of this is that Canadians and parliamentarians may actually forget about what is in the budget. I also think the government is fearful about what it is going to report in this budget, and that is why it is being introduced on a Thursday afternoon. This is equal to government news coming out on a Friday afternoon when it does not want anybody to pay attention to it. That is concerning in and of itself. When we talk about accountability and transparency, we talk about the Prime Minister coming to committee to answer these questions. We know he is not willing to answer the questions here. Otherwise, the government would not be introducing a budget on a Thursday afternoon when members of Parliament will be back in their ridings the next week for Remembrance Day. At a minimum, because he said that he was going to make things better for Canadians, the Prime Minister needs to come to committee to answer those questions. As I said earlier, what these numbers mean is that the average family of four is going to be paying roughly $6,000 a year in interest on that debt. This is just absurd at a time when Canadians are struggling and dealing with food insecurity and housing affordability. They are dealing with issues of anxiety and stress. There is not a day that goes by, and I am sure there are other members of Parliament on all sides who are dealing with this too, when we are not walking somebody in off the ledge who is dealing with these issues of affordability. In 2015, Canada had the wealthiest middle class in the world, and now we have 2.3 million people a month, and in many cases, these are working-class people, who are visiting food banks in this country. Food banks are reporting that their shelves are bare now because of the demand that has been happening. We have seniors in grocery stores putting items back on the shelf because they cannot afford them. This is not a normal state for a G7 country. The Prime Minister said that he was going to fix it, and he has done anything but. In fact, I would suggest that he has made this situation much worse with the lack of control in spending, the debt and the deficits. It is disturbing. It is disturbing for my kids. It is disturbing for all of our kids and grandkids. They are the ones who are going to pay the price for this.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 156

  1. Government Orders Business of Supply 105 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  3. Oral Questions Housing 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Oil and Gas Industry 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Labour 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 5 statements
  8. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Housing 8 statements
  10. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Government Appointments 4 statements
  12. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 8 statements
  13. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Small Business 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions Marine Transportation 2 statements
  19. Government Orders Business of Supply 41 statements
  20. Oral Questions Natural Resources 2 statements
  21. Government Orders Business of Supply 17 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) 2 statements
  23. Government Orders Committees of the House 2 statements
  24. Private Members' Business Relieving Grieving Parents of an Administrative Burden Act (Evan's Law) 4 statements
  25. Orders of the Day Concurrence in Committee Reports 71 statements
  26. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  27. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  28. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements