Debates of Oct. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Cost of Deficits

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to elaborate.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau also used to work himself into a frenzy over the carbon tax. I remember how worked up he would get and how passionate his speeches were when he talked about how important it was.

The Liberals are criticizing us today for voting in favour of a Conservative motion. However, looking at the Liberal platform, roughly half of what it proposes was in the Conservative election platform.

That is why I do not pay any attention whatsoever to that kind of rhetoric from the Liberals. What I cannot abide is that, while the most vulnerable people in our society have no money in their pockets, the government has decided to help the wealthy.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of Liberal hypocrisy.

It is true that in committee, the Liberals voted in favour of the bill to increase OAS. That vote took place in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

However, when the time came to defend their position in the House and take responsibility for their decision, only a few Liberal MPs stood up to support my bill. Since the rest of the Liberal MPs did not support it, the bill failed. That is Liberal hypocrisy.

In my riding, an organization called SOS Dépannage recently told me that they have been getting more requests from seniors in need of food. I am eager to see the conclusions of my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who is organizing a conference.

Has my colleague also heard about this issue of seniors' groups requesting help from food banks in his constituency?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yes indeed, the same thing is happening in Lac‑Saint‑Jean. I think this problem exists everywhere, in every region of Quebec and probably in the rest of Canada too. Once again, I want to commend the member for Shefford for all the work she is doing to protect seniors, retirees and the most vulnerable among us. She is so caring and dedicated to helping others.

I mentioned caring and dedication, but unfortunately, some people on the other side of the House are missing both of those qualities. However, what they lack most of all is courage. They unanimously voted for the bill in committee, but they are going to present us with a budget that likely does not mention what the bill proposed. They were just pretending. I almost used an unparliamentary word.

Sadly, the members on the other side of the House are not living up to their word. Honestly, it is disappointing, coming from people who are supposed to be representing the public.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is now my turn to speak, and I want to say that I am a bit surprised to learn that our Bloc Québécois colleagues will vote in favour of the motion, but so be it.

The global economy has changed and Canada must change too. We need to build more housing and infrastructure and support industries that are essential to our economic growth. This spring, Canadians called for a serious and ambitious plan, and we are working hard to prepare and implement that plan.

First, as our colleague, the Minister of Finance, has already announced, our new government will table a budget on November 4. Second, as was also indicated this week, the budget will be based on a new capital investment budgeting framework. This framework will distinguish between current operating expenditures and capital investments, which will help the government prioritize investments that will deliver long-term benefits for Canada. Operating expenditures will be balanced by 2028-29.

I would also like to point out that this new way of presenting a budget only adds information. Nothing is being taken away. The final numbers are still there. No one is trying to hide anything. We are adding information so that Canadians can have a better understanding of public finances and the government's role. Ultimately, after all the discussions we have here, which can sometimes be a bit heated, we are getting back to the basics.

What matters most is understanding the government's role. What role should the government play in the current economic environment? The Conservatives have an opinion, a perspective, on that role. They believe it should be minimal. The government should do nothing. It should cut taxes as much as possible and let the economy decide what happens. We have a very different view of the government's role. It is a different concept because the environment today is very different from what it has been for the last 15, 20 or 30 years.

Let us look at what has happened, especially over the past 10 years. Our colleagues keep going on about inflation, deficits, and this, that and the other. However, there are a few things to keep in mind. There was a pandemic. In 2020, the global economy came to a standstill. It was not pleasant, and the governments of all the OECD countries and the world were at a bit of a loss as to how to get out of this situation.

We did end up getting out of the situation. However, the global economic recovery was hampered by supply chain disruptions, which caused inflation. The inflation stems from that period, from the disruptions to global production. We had a heavily integrated global economy that disintegrated somewhat with the pandemic. When demand rebounded after the pandemic, prices rose because there was not enough supply. Everyone wanted to buy the same thing at the same time.

Just as we were beginning to recover, what happened? The war in Ukraine started and energy prices soared. It was not the Liberal government's policies that caused energy prices to rise around the world. Give me a break. Ukraine was also a major grain producer. Global grain prices also rose. Then, just as we were starting to recover a little, what happened? A new American president took office and told everyone on the planet that his favourite word is “tariffs”.

The new U.S. administration's goal was to opt out of the global trading system. The Canadian economy, which is highly integrated with that of the U.S., has suffered and continues to suffer a great deal as a result of these issues. Since the partners we have been counting on for decades are no longer reliable, we need to change directions.

The government has a role to play in that. Right now, the Government of Canada is taking responsibility. We want to help the Canadian economy transform itself, diversify and seek out new markets. That is the direction that November's budget will take.

Let us now come back to the Conservative motion, because I find it very interesting, even though I will vote against it. It states:

(ii) Liberal deficits fueled inflation....

As I just said, the Liberals did not fuel inflation. Inflation is global and stems from the effects of the pandemic and from rising transportation costs due to increased crude oil prices after the invasion of Ukraine. Inflation also stems from the American tariffs. In case our friends have not noticed, the price of aluminum in North America has increased dramatically for all consumers of aluminum because of the American tariffs. This is not a Canadian phenomenon, but a global one.

The motion states:

(iii)...food inflation doubled the Bank of Canada's target....

Come on. The Bank of Canada does not have a food inflation target. The Bank of Canada's mandate is to keep inflation within a predictable range and under control at 2%. Global inflation is calculated on the basis of a basket of consumer goods. There is no specific target for food inflation, which, as my colleague already mentioned, is also starting to get back under control.

Lastly, in their motion, the Conservatives say:

...deficits drive investment...down....

No, deficits do not drive investment down. Private investment is currently low because of uncertainty caused by our neighbour's tariff policies. We will provide guidance and help the private sector invest. The private sector will invest, and the government will be there to make our economy strong and resilient.

The November 4 budget will provide a lot of clarity on this issue.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is very knowledgeable about the economy and about austerity measures, considering his background. I would like him to reassure us about the future budget, if he knows what is in it, and tell me what he thinks about the subsidies and tax exemptions being given to western oil companies, to the tune of $83 billion over five years.

Could this money not be used to help people who are struggling to make ends meet, for example, by transferring it to old age pensions or directly to Canadians?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am bit surprised that our Bloc Québécois colleagues are criticizing us because we have a budget that will have a deficit, a very large deficit, and yet they are also asking us to spend more. I find this rather contradictory.

The oil sector is a key sector for Canada's economy. It generates significant wealth. It also generates significant tax revenues, so we will be staying the course.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, those of us who have to run our own budgets know that it is never wise to invest borrowed or printed money to dig ourselves out of bad debt. As to the capital expenditures the government is speaking of, where is that money coming from? The Liberals talk about direct private investment. The wealth that has already been removed from the country by the government will not be offset by what the government is attempting to do.

Will this budget indicate clearly, with those capital investments, how much of the investment is dwindling tax dollars, how much is borrowed money and how much is printed money?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there were many things in the member's question.

Modern Canadian governments, like all governments in the OECD these days, do not print money. Let us get that clear. Governments do not print money. Credit is a way for governments to address their situation. When private investment is faltering because of great uncertainty, the government has a very important role to play to assist private businesses in investing. It is private investment that will drive the economy.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to give us his perspective on our fiscal situation and the fact that Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and the lowest deficit in the G7. I would like him to explain to Canadians what that means in practical terms.

Of course, we must address the reality of our fiscal situation, but it is also true that Canada is in a stable position.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, the reason why the Government of Canada will be able to announce major investments in its budget is because the nation's finances are under control. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is among the lowest in the OECD.

Our debt is not excessive. We can control and manage the situation.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, big banks, big grocery and big telecommunications companies are posting record profits. Meanwhile, people are getting squeezed at the pump. They are getting squeezed at the till. They cannot afford to pay their bills.

When will the government charge an excess profits tax on the big corporations that are squeezing everyday Canadians when they are trying to make ends meet?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so surprised. I think we should use this clip. The Conservatives want the government to overtax excess profits. Is that really what you want?

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

I'm NDP.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

I am sorry about that.

[An hon. member]

Now does it make sense?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

It still does not make sense.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order. We will carry on that debate another time.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe North.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but weigh in on the most recent intervention. I have heard many great things about the hon. member who just spoke, but surely he would know what happens to the money supply when the Bank of Canada purchases the debt that the government issues. While there is no money printer printing physical bills, the money supply increases substantially, which is, in effect, like printing money.

It is a pleasure to stand before members here today. It is my first time making an intervention of this nature in the chamber since the election, so I would like to take a moment to thank some of the wonderful people who helped send me here from the beautiful town of Penetanguishene. Paul Lefaive went to the Penetanguishene Curling Club and signed up members for my nomination papers. Kirk Ruston, Infinity Golf Lab and all of the people at the hangar make sure that I know what is going on in town and what real people think. Serge Moreau and Frank St. Amant were my sign chairs. Frank is the president of the compound. I just want to thank them. Because of them, I am happy to be here today speaking on behalf of the wonderful constituents of Simcoe North.

I would also like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the wonderful hon. member for Regina—Wascana, who sits beside me.

This is an important time for the country. We know there are a number of threats economically. It is not an easy task to deal with them, but we have seen this movie before.

The former prime minister, Trudeau, said that he would spend just a bit of extra money and have small deficits to get big economic gains. What did we have? We had a decade of very poor economic performance, $100 billion of deficits before we hit COVID and multiple hundreds of billions of dollars of deficits during COVID.

We had multiple commentators, including the Bank of Canada and well-known economists, telling the government that its spending was contributing to inflation. The Bank of Canada went so far as to ask why we care about inflation so much. It is because it hurts low-income and vulnerable Canadians the most. That is why we should care about inflation.

Do we know who benefits from inflation? The government and people who own assets benefit from inflation. Government revenues have never been higher. They exploded during the inflationary environment, and the government could not help but spend all of that money and more.

In 2015, before the government took over 10 years ago, the federal government spent about $300 billion on its expenditures. That number today is expected to be $530 billion for the fiscal year that just ended. That is a substantial increase in spending, yet the Liberals are still so far away from balancing the budget. We are not even in a recession. What is going to happen to the federal fiscal finances if, heaven forbid, a recession takes place?

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has warned that government finances are “unsustainable”. For example, in 2015, the federal government spent 7.5¢ out of every expense dollar to pay interest on the debt. Today, that number is over 10¢, and it is expected to go to 14¢ out of every dollar in just a few years. In real dollar value, $80 billion a year will be paid in interest on the debt in just a few short year.

Why is that the case? It is because the government took on too much debt in the first place. It is not just that. It is that when the government took on the debt, it did so absolutely negligently, borrowing in all short-term debt. We had countries during COVID, like Austria, issue 100-year bonds. The average term to maturity in Mexico is 18 years. In Canada, the average term to maturity is six. Heck, even the provincial government in Ontario is 12 years.

What the government has done to the management of this nation's finances is nothing short of embarrassing. We will be doubling the amount the government spends on interest on the debt in a decade. That means less money for social services. The IMF, which members of the government love to tout as a wonderful multilateral institution, has already acknowledged that for every single penny that is spent on interest on the debt, a corresponding amount is cut from social services.

That is why we care about spending. The individuals in this chamber and the individuals outside who were warning that the government was spending too much a few short years ago were laughed out of the room because our debt-to-GDP ratio was falling or we were not spending that much on interest on the debt. Now look at where we are, and this is before we are even in a recession.

In May, the Bank of Canada warned that 40% of the government's debt issuance is purchased by hedge funds. Why should we care about that? It means that 40% of the debt issued by the government is purchased by financial speculators, who do not hold the debt for very long. They buy it and sell it immediately in the repo market. What is going to happen to our interest rates if something outside of Canada, such as a sovereign debt issue, a crisis somewhere else or global economic uncertainty, causes these hedge funds and financial speculators to not have liquidity or not be able sell the debt they purchase? Who is going to buy the debt then?

Yields will increase, interest on the debt will increase and social services will have to be cut. Of course, we could get back to the central Bank of Canada purchasing the debt of this nation and monetizing the debt, which is, in effect, printing money. What happens when we print money? Inflation goes up and a massive gap is created between those who hold assets and those who do not.

For all of the government's focus on low-income individuals, its absolute blindness to and not recognizing the negative effects of inflation on low-income and vulnerable Canadians is deplorable. The government has overseen an increase of wealth and income disparity in this country over the last 10 years. Over the previous Harper administration, it went down. Wealth and income disparity did not go up under the previous Conservative government. They have gone up under the Liberal government in the last 10 years, because its policies and inflationary deficits have made those who hold assets richer and those who do not poorer.

That is what happens. This is simple economics. It is not what I would have expected from a well-regarded, well-renowned Prime Minister who has all of these accolades and says he knows better than everyone else. He did not run on spending double what Mr. Trudeau spent in terms of deficits.

Other Liberal policies are leading to inflation everywhere. It is not just food. Let us think about insurance costs. Because the government has made this country uninvestable, reinsurers have left it. That means there is less competition in insurance, which is why rates for commercial and auto insurance are going through the roof. This is in addition to the fact that the government does not seem to care, or has only recently seemed to care, about stolen cars.

I was at my favourite watering hole last night, called Stolen Goods. What a wonderful place. People there were telling me they spend about one-third of their equivalent rent payments just to ensure they have commercial insurance for their enterprise. This is unsustainable.

These economic policies and outcomes are a direct result of the government's lack of focus on the economy, believing it can solve every problem by spending more money.

The Prime Minister just went down to the Oval Office. I would be embarrassed if I was a Liberal MP sitting here today. The Prime Minister campaigned and said that Conservatives would kneel before the altar of Mr. Trump, but what did he do? Here are a couple of headlines. “It’s humiliating to kowtow to Trump. But what choice does Carney have?” That is in the Globe and Mail. Althia Raj writes, in the Toronto Star, that the Prime Minister and Donald Trump “put on a show of affection”. She even called it a “bromance”. I think it is reasonable to point that out.

We are here today to stop the unnecessary inflationary deficits. That is what Conservatives are here to do.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to come back to the issue of printing money. I would like to remind my colleague that it is called quantitative easing, and it is a policy central banks implemented. The U.S. Federal Reserve also adopted this policy, as did many European countries.

Does my hon. colleague believe that quantitative easing measures are harmful?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I had the wonderful opportunity to work for finance minister Jim Flaherty, who said what everybody knew at the time: Quantitative easing is inflationary and harmful to the overall economy.

The central bank never did quantitative easing until COVID. It is doing quantitative tightening now. The government's fiscal policies are putting the bank in a very difficult position whereby it may have to restart quantitative easing again, and we have seen the results of that all across the world.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about expenditures and revenues. Obviously, the public coffers need to be managed responsibly, but those who manage them must also take into account the people hardest hit by the economic crisis, which seems to be having an impact on a considerable segment of the population.

Does my colleague agree with the position of his own party, which supported the member for Shefford's bill to restore fairness between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over with regard to OAS benefits? Even though it is an expenditure, does he think it is a good expenditure that could in turn benefit the Canadian economy, since those people are going to spend that money here?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as Conservatives, we want to make sure that a government spends its money properly so that it has money to spend on health care and social services for those who need them the most, including seniors, young people and those with families. We have to be judiciously focused on every single line item so that the government has the money to spend on vulnerable people and those in low-income situations, especially seniors.

I would add to my colleague's point that for those who qualify for the guaranteed income supplement, the amount is not high enough.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am following up on the quantitative easing issue. The Government of Canada went into a stimulus program. In January, the bank said it had normalized and finished its quantitative tightening process, but during the Speech from the Throne, I warned that this was an indication that the government was going to go on a spending spree again. From what I have seen over the last couple of months, as the fiscal house of cards has fallen apart, we are on the verge of massive new quantitative easing.

I wonder if my colleague might comment on the impact of that, particularly in the current context of the economy.

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the risks he raises are important. The reason we had quantitative easing in the first place is that no one else who was willing to purchase our debt. That might happen again. With 40% of those who purchased our debt being hedge funds or financial speculators, if they are unable to purchase our debt, who is going to?

We will see rates increase or we will see the Bank of Canada forced to purchase Canadian government debt, which, of course, is quantitative easing. Maybe we will see both. That money supply, M2, will increase, and that is, in effect, money printing.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Imperial Oil posted profits of over $7 billion in 2023, almost $5 billion in 2024 and almost $1 billion in the last quarter. It has returned $367 million to shareholders. What is the excess profits threshold for Conservatives before they would charge an excess profits tax, so they could support the very vulnerable people the member is talking about?