Debates of Oct. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion

[Juanita Nathan, Liberal, Pickering—Brooklin, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that programs and services are the responsibility of the provincial government, and at this time, if they are able to do what they are supposed to do, they will be able to put programs in for everyday Canadians who are going to be affected by the tariffs.

I urge the provincial governments to look deep and to serve Canadians well.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Pickering—Brooklin for sharing her time with me. I am very happy to rise on this motion.

First of all, let us address the elephant in the room. The Conservative Party has brought forward a motion that is, once again, heavy on slogans and light on substance. Canadians are tired of the noise. It is unfortunate to see that, with the few opposition days they have, this is how they are choosing to spend them, by lying to Canadians.

We know what Canadians want—

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think you would agree with me that it is terribly unparliamentary to accuse the party opposite of lying to Canadians. That is not the case.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There are certain words that are very clearly unparliamentary, and I will ask the member to quickly withdraw it and carry on.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do withdraw that word and would replace it with “misleading”, as they are misleading Canadians through the many comments we have heard in the House.

We know that Canadians want results. They want leadership that builds and not one that just continues to blame consistently. While Conservatives spend their time talking down Canada and Canadians, our government will continue to focus on building with discipline, direction and delivery.

We are strengthening an economy that is already the most stable in the G7 and positioning it for the next generation of growth. We are investing in Canadians. We are investing in their ideas. We are investing in their skills and in the industries that will carry this country forward. We are investing in clean energy, electric vehicles, advanced manufacturing, and the copper and critical minerals that power the world. These are not abstract plans. They are the backbone of Canada's economy.

While the Conservatives keep criticizing, we keep building a strong economy. We are going to deliver results for families, workers and communities across the country. We are preparing ourselves and preparing our nation for the future with the same ambition as the generations that built Canada.

We know that times are tough right now. Canadians have told us that. Bills are high, housing is tight and groceries are costly. This is when Canadians need leadership. It means that we have to show up with solutions and not slogans. It means that we have to serve Canadians. We have to pass bills in the House and not just talk down to Canadians. That is exactly what this side of the House is doing.

Let us take a look at the facts. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have a AAA credit rating from every major agency. Inflation has stayed within target for over a year. These are not just talking points, these are real measures and real results.

I am sure Conservatives will talk about inflation, but what they forget to tell Canadians, every single time they bring it up in the House, is that inflation is something that has plagued the whole world in the last number of years.

We have good news. On November 4, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue will table a budget, a plan to grow the economy, to boost productivity and to restore long-term prosperity. It will focus on the fundamentals, which are housing, infrastructure and skills. It will build partnerships that attract private investments across every region of Canada.

Since the new government took place, we have been putting money back into Canadians' pockets. We know that the middle class tax cut is helping 22 million Canadians keep more of what they earn. For a two-income family, that is up to $840 next year. It is real help and not political fodder.

We are also tackling housing head on through Build Canada Homes. We are fast tracking affordable prefabricated homes on federal lands. This will help young families get into the market and create skilled trade jobs, unlocking a whole new generation of Canadian builders. By removing the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers, we are saving families up to $50,000 and making ownership a reality for many young people.

Every house built will be a dream come true, a job created and a community growing ever stronger. That is what building Canada is all about.

Our plan is rooted in fiscal discipline and economic realism. We are spending less and investing smarter. We are capping the size of government, cutting duplication and using technology to deliver better services. Every single dollar must deliver value. That is called fiscal discipline with purpose.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives cannot pick a lane. One week they promise cuts everywhere; the next they say they will invest. They voted against the dental care plan, pharmacare, affordable housing, clean energy projects and families and children in this country, even in their own ridings. When they say they stand with workers but oppose pension reforms that would fund new industries right here at home, they are misleading Canadians. That is not leadership. That is politics for politics' sake. Canadians can see the difference and made their choice in April. This is the moment that the Conservatives can come together and support the government to rebuild Canada's economic strength for the long haul.

Budget 2025 will set the foundation for a new industrial strategy, one that secures our energy future, rebuilds our supply chains and attracts the kind of investment that turns local opportunity into national growth. That is what the Conservatives are being given an opportunity to do, and I really hope they will take the opportunity to invest in Canadians and support budget 2025.

We are moving forward with short-term fixes to long-term building, from dependence on a single market to resilience in global trade, from uncertainty to steady growth.

We are going to build an economy that works for everyone, an economy based on discipline, innovation and Canadian pride. In fact, Canada's real strength is its people, its ambition and its ability to deliver results.

This is about building a strong nation. It is about building the future for young people. It is about imagining what Canada could look like when we invest in children, young people and seniors, and when we work together, the government and opposition parties. When Canadians voted on April 28, they sent us here to do exactly that, and we have to meet the moment.

While Conservatives continue to chase headlines, this government will continue to focus on real results. We will continue to build an economy that works for all Canadians, an economy powered by Canadian talent, industry and ambition. We are building a Canada that simply works for the middle class, the next generation and every region across this nation. That is leadership and what leadership looks like.

[Matt Strauss, Conservative, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals continually say they are going to build Canada strong and build a great economy. They have had 10 years to do it, and it has not happened. Canada's GDP per capita growth over the last 10 years was the lowest in the G7. I am begging the hon. member opposite merely to acknowledge that economic fact and, upon acknowledging it, reflect on what about the Liberals' plan did not work for the last 10 years and how the new plan is different.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments, we acknowledge that inflation has hit Canadians. I acknowledged that housing costs and food costs have gone up, but that is not just in Canada.

I know the Conservatives love to talk down Canada. Today, in question period, they used the same script. Maybe the same person writes the script. Perhaps they need to change that person, because they were given misleading information to mislead Canadians and said that Canada is not growing. That is simply not true.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my colleague used the word “discipline” in her speech and that she spoke on the importance of being disciplined and diligent when managing public finances.

I would like to hear what she has to say about the action taken by her government immediately before the election, when it eliminated the carbon tax and refunded Canadians outside Quebec and British Columbia nearly $4 billion, even though the carbon tax had not been paid.

How does that show discipline or diligence?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows perfectly well that the carbon tax did not apply in Quebec. For those who paid it, unfortunately, we had to return that money and remove the carbon tax for Canadians, because the issue became polarized thanks to the Conservatives, and they are still doing it today.

They started with the carbon tax. Everything they touch becomes polarized. Now they want to polarize Canada with slogans saying that Canada is broken, when that is not the reality.

I hope my colleague across the aisle will continue to work with us to be more disciplined, especially in the language we use to communicate with Canadians.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from London West for her excellent speech.

Last April, Canadians gave us a strong mandate. I believe this is because they realized that our party was the only one with a real plan to defend our workers, our industries and our economy.

In my colleague's opinion, how is the budget, which will be presented on November 4, an essential step in strengthening our economy and making it the best-performing economy in the G7?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate my colleague's question. I also want to congratulate him on all the work he does for francophones outside Quebec. As a francophone outside Quebec, I greatly appreciate all of his work on that front.

As I mentioned, on November 4, we will have very good news for Canadians. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue will bring down a generational budget, a disciplined budget that aims to help Canadians in several sectors, but especially the energy sector and the sectors affected by the tariffs. It will be a budget unlike any we have seen in a very long time.

I know that my colleague will vote in favour of the budget, but I also hope he will use his parliamentary influence to convince our colleagues and his friends to vote in favour of the budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague, the member for Whitby, stood up and said the government would be spending less to invest more and referred to the operating budget.

Could she share with the House and Canadians what the cuts will be to the public service?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we believe in our public sector. As we said, this budget is going to spend less and invest more in Canada and invest more in Canadians. That means we have to review everything. We have to review our operations, everything that we do. I trust that the public sector is doing that work right now to review and to make sure we have the ability to invest in Canadians.

I would think the member would support that.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

I am honoured to be representing the people of Markham—Unionville.

If capital can be considered water, then Canada is a leaky bucket. Our foreign direct investment, FDI, is the directional flow of this water. FDI coming in is the total inflow of capital from the world to Canada, and FDI going out is the total outflow of capital to the world from Canada. If we subtract the inflow from the outflow, we get our net FDI, or the level of water in our bucket.

The Canadian bucket has been leaking every year from 2015 to 2024 under the Liberal government. Rounding solely to the nearest billion, these are the quick stats for the net outflow each year, all negative: 2015 was $30 billion, 2016 was $44 billion, 2017 was $69 billion, 2018 was $26 billion, 2019 was $36 billion, 2020 was $24 billion, 2021 was $56 billion, 2022 was $50 billion, 2023 was $63 billion and 2024 was $40 billion. From 2015 to 2024, this equates to negative $437 billion.

Do we even have a bucket here, or is this a pipeline of our capital being pumped directly to other countries under a decade of Liberal loss? Let us discuss the cause of these leaks. When the outflow FDI from Canada consistently exceeds the inflow, it means that Canadian capital is finding better opportunities abroad than foreign capital is finding in Canada. This means we need more domestic projects with streamlined regulations to retain our leaky capital.

Our domestic market is small, with only about 40 million people dispersed across a land mass that is second only to Russia in size. This already means that our firms cannot completely rely on domestic consumption. It already means that the only way we compete internationally is through exports. It already means that the only decision in the mind of our firms is whether they can build in Canada and ship to external markets or whether they set up production internationally to sell internationally.

We need incentivizing structures to make it easier to launch massive projects in Canada around energy, infrastructure and manufacturing. These projects would give our economic actors reasons to keep their capital within our borders. However, the Liberals want to make it hard to build in Canada. Our reputation is ruined for investors with multiple failed projects like northern gateway or energy east.

The Liberals want carbon pricing. The Liberals want environmental, social and governance, ESG, reporting requirements on everything. The Liberals want impact assessments over and over again, barriers upon barriers. The Liberals do not want us to build. They do not want us to be industrialized. The Liberals want to drive us back to the Stone Age, where we can frolic in fields, beset by poverty.

We only need to look at current stats to see the road to poverty that is being paved for us by Liberal intentions. Since the Prime Minister was sworn in, in March, 86,000 Canadians have lost their job, Canada has the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7 and food inflation is double the Bank of Canada's target rate.

I came across an interesting definition of the west: western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic. When we take away our industrialization, we lose what makes us rich and what enables us to be educated. We often find in cities that universities emerge only after the city has undergone an industrial and commercial build-out. There is no true mass democracy without a mass society fostered through the foundation of industrial wealth.

When too much capital leaves Canada because of anti-growth Liberal policies, will Canada still be a western nation? The Conservatives want to stop these capital leaks. The overarching vision is very simple: Retain more of our domestic capital and attract more foreign capital. Another way to look at this is when we have more water than our bucket can contain. Imagine that our bucket is no longer leaking, but that it is very small. This small bucket could not contain the $437 billion of outflow that exited our bucket over the last 10 years under the Liberal government. Building a bigger, capital-retaining bucket means having cities where we can deposit our capital for an expected return.

As I mentioned before, let us focus on energy, infrastructure and manufacturing. If we cannot create a policy environment where it is easy for major projects to be set up in Canada, these major projects will be set up outside of our borders. Along with these out-going projects will be the jobs that should have existed for Canadians. There is no other way for us to make meaningful moves within the parliamentary cycle.

I have one additional point that relates to manufacturing, and I will relate it through an analogy. All things being equal, do we want to be grape sellers or wine sellers? Speaking broadly, Canada is very used to being a seller of grapes throughout our distinguished history. However, if we want to retain more capital within our borders, we need to do more of the venture-added processing work, which would behoove us to have a stronger domestic production build out. From an industrial policy standpoint, this means selling less of our resources raw, investing in more production capacity for the resources that we have in abundance and ensuring that we have end markets for our value-added products, otherwise this export strategy all falls apart.

Let us recall that, first, if we do not do this ourselves within our borders, it means that our capital will find itself investing in production facilities within the end market destinations. Second, our roughly 40-million person market across a vast land mass is not enough to serve our total pool of capital. Finally, an export-oriented strategy built upon the foundation of energy, infrastructure and manufacturing projects may be one of the few ways to reserve our flows of capital from a federal policy standpoint under the consideration of a parliamentary cycle.

Absent our capacity to retain our capital through policy levers at the federal level, we risk becoming a nation of fields to frolic in, beset by poverty in a post-industrial wasteland that the Rust Belt knows only too well. Perhaps we will then come to rely solely on tourism to our green society, and guess where our tourists will come from? They will come from industrialized societies producing wealthy citizens, uninhibited by carbon pricing, ESG reporting requirements and impact assessments.

Every dollar that leaves the country means lower wages and lost jobs for workers. We Conservatives call on the Liberals to stop driving investment and jobs down and the cost of living up.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I noted some interesting comments the member made about the government wanting to send Canadians back to the Stone Age and frolic in fields. I am sure the member has heard about our government's revolutionary nation-building projects, which will bring billions of capital and build up innovative industries.

How does the member resolve his outlandish comments with our innovative nation-building project program?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what we saw in the Prime Minister's announcement of projects was that they were all old projects. They were existing projects or ones that are being completed.

What progress have we made since this government came into power? Compared to the last 10 years, we have made no progress.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect that has not been discussed much today. In this difficult economic climate, there are some very active groups that are considering ways to develop the economy in the regions. Yesterday in Granby, there was an event that focused on economics. It brought together representatives from the chambers of commerce across the Eastern Townships.

I would have liked to have been at that conference. There were workshops to discuss how to develop the regional economy. I was here in Ottawa, but I commend those who helped organize it. I know that one of their concerns is about temporary foreign workers, who are essential to the regional economy. I am sure that came up in the discussions yesterday.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the economics of Canada, as we have seen, is that we have been dragged down by a lot of temporary foreign workers, thereby youth unemployment is up and the available jobs for youth and other citizens have gone done. The unemployment rate is high. We need to protect the Canadians who are here. Their lives depend on our economy and the job market we have in Canada.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which highlighted some macroeconomic issues in Canada's economy.

All day today we have been hearing from the Liberals saying our debt-to-GDP ratio is pretty good, but there are two factors they ignore. The first is subnational debt, so that we are really comparing apples to apples with other nations. The second is the economy's ability to service debt. The best measure of that is productivity, which also is lagging substantially behind our trading partners.

I wonder if my colleague could comment on those.

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know the deficit will drive up costs for all Canadians because, as the hon. member mentioned, we have to finance those debts. They do not come cheap or at zero cost. What that means is that a lot of the tax dollars we receive will have to go to service those debts. That takes away from the available budgets for programs like hospitals, education and, most importantly, developing our economy. That is very critical when we are expecting this new budget coming up to be even worse than that of the last Liberal government. This would be an alarm bell for all Canadians.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague believe that changing trade relations with the United States and broader changes in the rules-based international trading system pose an economic threat to Canadian businesses and workers?

[Michael Ma, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we always believe that if there are risks, there are also opportunities. It is up to the Prime Minister to negotiate and turn those risks into opportunities for Canadians.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House of Commons to speak on behalf of the great people of southwest and west central Saskatchewan. Before I begin, I would like to give a quick happy birthday shout-out to the member for Cariboo—Prince George, a wonderful member of this House. There are lots of family ties between people in southwest Saskatchewan and people in his part of B.C. I know there is a flow of people that way. Happy birthday to him. He is a great member.

Before I get into the substance of my speech, it is really important, whenever we talk about anything that has to deal with the state of the economy in Canada, that we point out the total number of debt in Canada. Right now, Canada's federal debt is $1,276,208,890,000. Now it is $891,000, $892,000, $893,000. I cannot even read the hundreds and the cents because it is going up way too fast.

The share of federal debt for each and every person in the House and every single Canadian is $30,457. The growth in Canada's debt per day, without the government introducing any new spending, is $109,863,013.70. That is every single day without the government doing anything. When the Liberals start pouring more inflationary spending on the fire, imagine how that number will be impacted and how it will change.

Those are the numbers that every single member of this House should be paying more attention to. If they did, they would understand them, particularly those on the government side. On this side, we pay attention to those numbers a lot. The government needs to pay attention to them, because then it would finally start to understand why we talk so much about the negative impact on the economy of the way the Liberals have been steering things.

I want to give people a bit of a history lesson. I am from Saskatchewan, born and raised. I grew up on a farm outside of a small town. The prairie economy back in the day was based on a couple of things. The most common thing was the rail line. When we look at where all the different communities across southwest and west central Saskatchewan are, they are generally in relation to either the current national rail line or the many offshoot rail lines. Some rail lines are no longer in existence and have been removed, but we can see the communities that used to exist along those rail lines. Some of those communities, unfortunately, have vanished or are vanishing because of the state of the economy.

The reason I bring this is up is that there used to be, out in the Prairies in particular, very individual, localized economies. If we look at the jobs numbers, 86,000 jobs were lost in Canada recently under the Prime Minister. These small local economies used to provide a lot of jobs. In just about every single small town along the rail line, farming was obviously the driver of the local economy, but within the local, siloed economy, there were farmers, a blacksmith, sometimes two or three equipment dealers selling farm implements and a couple of different auto dealers selling cars and trucks. They also had schools and hospitals. They had a heavy focus on the local economy, so there were always lots of jobs for folks in these small towns.

If we fast-forward, our rural communities have been decimated. We can look on Google Maps and zoom in and look at the roads. This is true for many members in the House, from Saskatchewan, from Alberta and from all across the country. In my riding in particular, I have well over 100 communities, and several of them are small in size for sure, but they are just as important as any of the larger communities, like the city of Swift Current, and, when we look nationally, some of the large cities, like Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. These small towns are extremely important. Why is that? For starters, agriculture represents one in eight jobs in the national economy, and we can break that down into the various portions of agriculture. The canola industry, for example, impacts GDP and the Canadian economy more than the auto industry does. That is how big and important the agriculture sector, even just the canola industry, let alone the entire agriculture sector, is to the prairie economy. I want people to know that off the top.

That gets to some of the current Liberal policies that are driving the cost of living crisis and chasing jobs out of Canada. We have things like the industrial carbon tax, the incoming Liberal fuel standard that is a second carbon tax and the emissions cap, and everybody knows about the failed Impact Assessment Act and the tanker ban. These are all largely detrimental policies for rural Canada, but they have a trickle impact into urban Canada because everything that exists in urban Canada originated from rural Canada, first and foremost. Whether it is food, building materials or the energy used to heat and cool homes, it all originated in rural Canada. It is important for people in the House to know and understand that.

I do not think that western Canada, particularly my riding, when we look at the way it was settled, would have developed the way it did if the Liberals of the day had had the same types of laws we see today, with the industrial carbon tax and things like that, which I listed earlier.

I want to share a quick story. Before we came back from summer break, I met with some seniors. He is 90 and she is 80. He is a retired farmer, and she worked in the service industry most of her life. One would never know it by looking at them; they do not look a day over 60. It is quite remarkable. People who work hard live long and prosperous lives. However, they have gotten to a point in their lives where they are not able to find work. No one is going to hire them, but when someone is 90 or 80, they should not be thinking about how they are going to work to put food on the table. They have a fixed income, and they are at a point in their lives where they have had to take a mortgage out on the house they have, just to be able to afford the basic necessities of life.

When I went and met with them, they had not run their air conditioning all summer, they did not have any lights on in their house and they told me they are not going to turn the furnace on until they absolutely have to. They had not eaten beef or even knew how long it had been since they had been able to go out and buy a roast, some steaks or things like that. They talked to me about how the food that they are eating is perilous, that their diet is going down the drain. It is actually leading to bad health outcomes for them because, again, they are 90 and 80.

She is doing everything she can to make home-cooked meals with the limited resources she has. When we look at the cost of groceries, it has gotten out of hand to the point that they are not even able to afford a roast anymore. She is really struggling to make things go. When I was there, she had loaves of bread set out that she had made because someone had given her the raw products needed to mill her own homemade bread, so that is a staple in their diet. It is homemade, so that is good. In the same breath, when they go out with $100 to the grocery store, for two people, that should be able to get them through a week and into a second week with no problem, but it does not. It barely gets people through a couple of days. Their budget only goes so far.

At the age they are at, they have medications that they have to buy. They still have a vehicle, but they do not drive it because they cannot afford to put gas in it. They cannot do the things that most people do when they retire with their grandkids. For example, they cannot take them on trips, to the hockey rink or for supper. It is hard for them to be able to do any of those because, quite frankly, they literally cannot afford it.

This is a farmer who has worked hard his entire life. He is a very proud man. This lady worked in the service industry helping people, including seniors, and also worked with adults with disabilities, one of the most noble things a person can do. Now they can hardly even afford to feed themselves.

That is why we have this motion in front of us here today: to get the government to focus on Canadians. We heard the Prime Minister today talk about $1 trillion being invested, if he gets the right deal, in the United States, and he is saying that it is private money. That is the whole point. Private companies should be investing in Canada, and the Prime Minister's goal should be to get that investment in Canada to fix our economy and create jobs so that the cost of living will not impact people like this family has been impacted.

It is embarrassing and the government needs to reverse course. It should adopt our motion.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to offer my best wishes to one of our colleagues. I am talking about the member for Labrador. I wish him a happy birthday. This is a great place to celebrate a birthday. There are at least two people sharing the same birthday.

I also want to take this opportunity to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving.

I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. It pains me to see that things are becoming difficult for seniors. The member was talking about a farmer who has always been there. Fortunately, at least they have access to dental care now. That helps them.

Here is my question for my colleague. Does he believe that the evolution of trade relations with the United States and broader changes to the rules-based international trading system pose an economic threat to Canadian businesses and workers?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it absolutely is creating an emergency for Canadian workers, because we lost 86,000 jobs over the last little while.

The Prime Minister, again, was openly bragging about sending $1 trillion into the United States if he gets the deal he expects. That investment needs to be in Canada. We are not hearing if it has been reciprocating into Canada. We need that investment in Canada, not the U.S.