House of Commons Hansard #37 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was economy.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Opposition Motion—Cost of Deficits Members debate the Liberal government's economic policies, focusing on deficit spending's impact on investment, jobs, and the cost of living. Conservatives contend deficits drive down investment, citing 86,000 net job losses and "unsustainable" finances, urging spending cuts. Liberals assert Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, attributing inflation to global factors, and defending investments and tax cuts. The Bloc Québécois agrees with "abysmal" management, criticizing forgone revenues and oil subsidies. The NDP proposes an excess profits tax. 33100 words, 4 hours.
Opposition Motion Members debate Canada's economic state. Conservatives argue Liberal government spending fuels inflation, job losses, and declining investment, worsening the cost of living crisis. They advocate for fiscal discipline and private investment. Liberals defend their record, citing Canada's strong G7 standing, and highlight initiatives like tax cuts, housing programs, and a plan to "spend less to invest more" in the upcoming budget. They attribute inflation to global factors. 25200 words, 3 hours.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The committee advises that, pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider items added to the order of precedence on September 23, 24 and 25, and recommended that the items listed herein, which have been determined, should not be designated non-votable and be considered by the House.
Julie Dzerowicz Liberal Davenport, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in relation to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Citizenship Act, 2025.
The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.
John Williamson Conservative Saint John—St. Croix, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The first report is entitled “The Benefits Delivery Modernization Programme”. The second report is entitled “Modernizing Information Technology Systems”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these two reports.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is a huge honour today to table e-petition 6778, signed by over 6,203 Canadians.
The petitioners are deeply concerned about proposed regulatory changes to Canada's Plant Breeders' Rights Act. They note that the act currently grants plant breeders exclusive rights for 20 years, but it also protects farmers through a farmers' privilege clause, which allows them to save and replant seed from their own harvest.
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is proposing to remove this privilege for fruits and vegetables, ornamental and hybrid varieties. The petitioners warn that this would force farmers to purchase seed annually, drive up production costs, restrict access to new varieties and undermine the ability of farmers to adapt to climate change. They argue that this change would unfairly erode the age-old practice of using farm-saved seed and that Canada should strengthen public plant breeding.
The petitioners call on the government to abandon these proposed changes.
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to table e-petition 6605, which was created by a constituent in my riding, Ms. Jo-Anne Green from Haliburton County.
The 1,100 signatories would like to bring attention to the issue of indigenous identity fraud. They would like the government to take action to ensure that there is legislation addressing first nations, Métis and Inuit identity fraud with clear definitions, mechanisms for enforcement and legal penalties for those taking advantage. They list a number of other actions they would like to see the House take as well.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni this morning by tabling a paper petition along the same lines.
The petitioners are very concerned about the changes to the plant breeders' rights regulations. The proposals put forward by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency aim to prevent farmers from exercising their age-old right to use the products of their land to reseed in future years, which would force them to pay extremely high fees to use seeds every year. A pattern seems to be forming here, and people are telling us they are concerned about that.
We want to protect the autonomy of agricultural producers, ensure our food resilience and, above all, ensure that the cost of agricultural production does not increase too quickly. The government has gone off on the wrong track with regulations. People are worried, and they are telling us so. I therefore formally ask the government members to consider this petition. It is very important. I thank the people who started the petition, as well as my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
moved:
That, given that,
(i) in 2015 the Liberals promised that deficit spending would fuel investment, yet investment per worker fell by 10.8%,
(ii) Liberal deficits fueled inflation and drove up interest rates, while Canada had the worst economic growth per capita in the G7,
(iii) the current Liberal Prime Minister is following the same plan and is already yielding the same results, with 86,000 net job losses, the second highest unemployment rate in the G7, food inflation doubled the Bank of Canada's target and $53.9 billion in net investment leaving the country,
(iv) every dollar that leaves the country means lower wages and lost jobs for workers,
(v) every dollar the government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians,
the House call on the Liberal government to stop plagiarizing Justin Trudeau's failed policies and recognize that deficits drive investment and jobs down and the cost of living up.
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to move this motion. I will be splitting my time with my friend from Calgary Crowfoot.
I am going to start with a sidebar and give a hometown shout-out that stretches right across the country, a big hype for the Toronto Blue Jays, which took down the Yankees last night and lifted the whole country with them. Canada's team is flying to the ALCS, and as a big fan, this team gives me all of the feels. I know that is true for everyone across the country. I congratulate them.
Unfortunately, members are not going to like the next part. Just like the Jays proving what teamwork and discipline can do on the field, imagine what Canada could achieve if the government showed the same focus. Unlike the scoreboard at the Rogers Centre, which we have been seeing go up and up, the only numbers going up in Ottawa, unfortunately, are deficits, unemployment and net investment flowing southbound rather than here.
I am going to tell a story, or, rather, a cautionary tale. Once upon a time in the not-so-distant past, in the year 2015, a trust-fund millionaire living in Liberal la-la land decided to run a radical experiment. He decided to spend billions of dollars of people's money to figure out whether budgets could truly balance themselves. Never mind that anybody with a background in finance or accounting or any part of the real world told him that it was not possible, Justin Trudeau was not going to be deterred.
According to the Trudeau school of economics, proudly located at the university of unicorns and fairy dust in a land of make-believe, spending ourselves deep into the red, lighting endless amounts of taxpayer money on fire and calling it “investment in spending” somehow makes us all richer. Ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars later, the most expensive and costly experiment in Canadian history has ended, and everyone with even an iota of common sense could have predicted what would happen. We did not get the promised utopia where everybody gets a job, nobody has to work and nobody thinks about monetary policy. Instead, the Liberals doubled the debt to give us higher inflation, higher taxes and smaller paycheques.
That is true today. Our living standard, as measured by economists, has stagnated and is getting worse. Rather than creating more prosperity, we lost half a billion dollars in foreign investment, investment per worker dropped by 10.8% and our labour productivity sunk. All the while, he said anybody who questioned any of this was talking down Canada and called them racist and alarmist, saying the planet would burn down. He called them every name in the book just for calling out the facts.
When Canadians were finally freed of the high-tax, high-spend Justin Trudeau regime earlier this year, they breathed a short sigh of relief because the new guy was supposed to be different and better. He said he was an economist who knew how markets worked. He said he would cut back on reckless spending and make it easier to create investment here in Canada. He said that he would do things differently. He said that he would get a trade deal with the United States.
Here is where we are. First of all, he kept the old people from the old government: the finance minister, the trade minister, the jobs minister, the foreign affairs minister and the justice minister. Most of those on the front bench are the same, so it is not really a new government. Instead of fighting for Canada and keeping elbows up, the Prime Minister brought a calculator to a knife fight, as his minister said he would. He is adding up on that calculator a $1-trillion gift to Donald Trump, subtracting 86,000 jobs here in Canada and multiplying American tariffs on our goods by two.
The Prime Minister is not spending less; he is spending more. Justin Trudeau was the most expensive prime minister in Canadian history. It was forecast this year that the Liberals would spend $42 billion. The Parliamentary Budget Officer said the new Prime Minister is going to spend 60% more, and that amount is only growing. Somehow the new Prime Minister has found a way to spend more than the guy who spent more than all of the other prime ministers combined. For those watching at home, spending $26 billion more means making the deficit bigger, not smaller. It means less money in their pockets. The Prime Minister is hoping that they do not notice that.
Liberals are telling Canadians again, just like they told them in 2015, that money is an investment and is supposed to create more jobs. This is how it adds up: We lost $54 billion of net investment in just half a year, which went southbound, not here; 86,000 jobs are gone; and we have the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7 with the second-highest unemployment rate, instead of the strongest economy in the G7 like the Prime Minister stood at every podium during the election and promised.
These are not stats. They are connected to people's lives, families and paycheques. Every job loss in a place like Windsor, Oshawa or Ingersoll means that another family is not sure how they are going to put food on the table. It means a father is not sure how he is going to tell his kids their dad does not have work anymore. Every person who wants to work and cannot find a job does not have the dignity that comes with being employed.
These are the real stories of the effects of these big numbers. Every time somebody who is working one, two or even three jobs goes to the grocery store and cannot afford basic necessities, it is the failure of the principle that if someone works hard in this country they should be able to get ahead. That is why we fight. We fight for every single Canadian who is being forgotten and left behind by the big numbers the Liberals are putting on the board.
If someone measures their wealth by looking at stock indices or portfolios, the Prime Minister is their guy. However, if that comes from a paycheque, they are being sold out in this scheme. That is why it is so infuriating to see the Prime Minister and the Liberal government doing the exact opposite of what they said they were going to do. It is especially galling that, after the Prime Minister went to Canadians in a time of crisis and offered them his word and hope, he then completely forgot about everything he said on the campaign trail. Worse, he possibly did not mean any of it at all.
The Liberal government has been spending all of that money for six months with no plan and no accountability on how it is doing this. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is the budget watchdog in this place, says that the government has zero, none, no fiscal anchors whatsoever. Someone who has been listening to the Prime Minister might have heard a bunch of talk about operational budget versus capital budget. I guarantee the Liberals will come back with that response nine times out of 10 when Conservatives talk about out-of-control spending.
This is not a plan to balance the budget. It is just an absurd proposal to move the goalpost. The Liberals are changing their reporting standards to what the non-partisan fiscal watchdog has said will lead to less transparency and does not even meet the international standard.
Why are the Liberals doing this? If we want to know the reason they are doing this, it is simple. They cannot stop the spending but want to brag about balancing a budget without doing that. If they are trying to do that, they are just changing the way they count. This is what we are seeing from the Liberals. It is like someone claiming they ran a marathon, but they quietly moved the finish line 20 metres up.
None of this is fiscal responsibility; it is all financial theatre. We are going to see that on November 4. The Liberals are trying to hide another broken promise of the Prime Minister and the government, which is full of Liberal ministers who still sit in that front row. They are not going to be able to hide it for much longer, because the fiscal watchdog says that we are “at the precipice” of a cliff. That means the government is spending more money than we can spend.
More debt and more interest payments equal higher taxes, higher inflation, fewer jobs for Canadians and less money spent on the very things we need it spent on in this country, like services for Canadians. We cannot keep doing this over and over again. That is what the fiscal watchdog said.
It is time to stop lighting taxpayer money on fire, and it is long past time to toss out the Justin Trudeau fantasy novel on economics, stop doing the same thing, stop plagiarizing his work and start living in the real world, where real people live paycheque to paycheque, where jobs are lost and where hope exists no longer.
Opposition Motion—Cost of DeficitsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
October 9th, 2025 / 10:15 a.m.
Trois-Rivières Québec
Liberal
Caroline Desrochers LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure
Mr. Speaker, it is sad that the opposition is continuing to spread a divisive message at a time when pride and grit should really unite all Canadians around the challenges we are facing. She said, “These are not stats”, and she is right. These are slogans.
The real stats are the following: We have the strongest credit rating in the world, AAA. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have had one of the highest rates of growth in the G7 since 2020. The IMF and the OECD project that Canada will have the strongest economic growth in the G7 this year. These are stats. These are real.
The other thing she said is that the Prime Minister forgot what he said on the campaign trail. I would like to remind the member that we have increased the salaries of our armed forces, cut taxes for Canadians and launched the Major Projects Office and Build Canada Homes.
Will she support us?
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are right that Canadian pride unites us. They can tell that to the Prime Minister, who moved his company out to New York because he realized his own policies would hurt the investors who invested in that company. They can tell the Prime Minister, who does not pay his taxes in Canada, about national pride. They can tell all they want to the worker in Oshawa who just lost his job because the Prime Minister cannot get a deal on auto. They can tell him all day long that the debt-to-GDP ratio is good, but what are they going to tell him when he cannot put food on his table? What are they going to tell him when he gets the pink slip? What are they going to tell the 86,000 workers who have been laid off in this country because the investment that has fled south?
What are they going to tell all those people whose livelihoods are on the line because the government cannot control its addiction to spending?
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Speaker, the speech that my colleague from Thornhill made earlier was very interesting.
Finally, we have a Conservative motion that the Bloc Québécois can get behind. Of course, it is easy to say that this government's management is abysmal when everyone can see we are digging ourselves in deeper and deeper. This government needs to manage a financial crisis for families in Quebec and Canada and yet, early in its mandate, it decided to forgo close to $90 billion in potential revenues, in particular by not imposing countertariffs, eliminating the digital services tax and so on.
The austerity proposed by the Conservatives is all well and good and we agree that we need stronger fiscal management, but what are the Conservatives suggesting to help grow the economy? Making cuts is not enough. We also need to implement measures that will help businesses thrive and choose to invest in the economy.
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. colleague is finally seeing the light on what the government is putting forward.
The Conservatives have said time and again that we have to build the Canadian economy with Canadian workers and Canadian investment here, with things like getting rid of the oil and gas cap so the pipeline that was potentially approved 10 years ago, which is back on the table, can be filled with oil, and so we can unleash the capacity of the private sector to invest here by cutting red tape and regulation.
The member has heard that time and again and I am glad he is finally standing up to oppose the government's reckless spending.
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I was quite surprised by the line of questioning that came from the Liberals. They would have us think that we have never had it so good, that everything is rosy in Canada and that, after 10 years of economic and fiscal vandalism, Canadians should congratulate the government for a job well done. The Liberals have broken every single promise they have made on deficits, debt and fiscal anchors or guardrails or whatever we want to call them.
Would the member have any further comments on that with whatever remaining time she has?
Melissa Lantsman Conservative Thornhill, ON
Mr. Speaker, I will say this: The Prime Minister stood in front of Canadians at a time of crisis and asked them for their support. He promised them that he was going to be the guy in the crisis to negotiate a deal.
Since he became Prime Minister, as I will remind the House over and over again, $54 billion of net investment has fled south. He is promising to make that $1 trillion without the promise of even one dollar coming back into our country. There are 86,000 jobs gone and we have the second-highest unemployment rate in this country. That is nothing to be proud of. Certainly, things have been much better in this country.
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is $100 billion. No, that is not Dr. Evil's ransom demand from the world. That is today's headline in the National Post. The potential deficit that will be tabled in the budget in November is $100 billion. This is today's front page headline.
It is important to consider how we got here. A $100-billion deficit is staggering. This is almost twice the national transfer to provinces for health care. This is the amount of extra borrowing being piled on. The interest from that will eventually make us unable to spend money on health care, national defence and all the things Canadians rely on from their governments.
How did we get here? The government, in 2015, promised it would run limited deficits for three years. It was the only party in that election promising to do so. Even the NDP back then knew we could not borrow with impunity forever. The Liberal Party was the only party promising a deficit. It said that deficits were okay. This was going to be a short-term deficit. It was going to make historic investments in national infrastructure. It was going to make investments. Its deficits were investments, and that would lead to the budget balancing itself and make people more prosperous.
Here we are, 10 years later. We have an out-of-control structural deficit closing in on $100 billion annually.
When the Liberals were elected, this promise of limited deficits followed by a balanced budget was immediately discarded. It was never, ever acknowledged after that. Bill Morneau was the finance minister. I attended question period after question period. In the finance committee, there were appearances by that minister. He never acknowledged this solemn promise that, clearly, was a point of differentiation between parties.
That was part of what got the government elected in the first place, and it was a lie. What the Liberals had promised during the election was so obviously untrue compared to what they did in office. They were elected. They passed a bunch of anti-business, anti-job and anti-industry bills like Bill C-69 and Bill C-48. These led to immediate capital flight from Canada. Upon the election of the government, $200 billion from the energy industry alone left this country. Half a trillion dollars of investment has left Canada since the government was elected.
We are here today to call on the government to quit plagiarizing the playbook that has brought us to the point we are today. These out-of-control, structural deficits began under the Liberal government. It inherited a balanced budget. This is clear. A balanced budget was tabled in 2015. The fiscal monitors who track spending showed that we were on track to balance it until the new spending of the Liberal government was brought in. It received a balanced budget. It inherited one. It blew it immediately.
The capital flight that resulted from the Liberals' out-of-control spending and anti-industry laws kicked in immediately and began to do what these policies always do everywhere they have been tried from time to time: They led to inflation. We have out-of-control deficits. We have inflation. We have a cost of living crisis now. We have the worst-performing economy in the G7 right now. The Liberals always talk about the G7 and say we are going to be the best in the G7. Well, we are the worst. Our economy is no longer growing per capita. In fact, it has shrunk. It is lower per capita than it was in 2014, the final year of the Harper government. Per capita GDP is lower now than it was in 2014.
Let us think about that. This means Canadians are getting poorer over time. I do not even think a 10-year window covering the Depression would even reveal a period that long and that sustained of declining per capita GDP, or GDP that has shrunk.
We have lower wages, lost jobs and lost investment under the government. We call upon it to reverse course and get serious about the budget.
That brings us to the current Prime Minister. As has been remarked by others, this was the guy who was supposed to know what to do. It had been 10 years of Trudeau, and we were done. We needed to actually have a serious person and have an adult in the room. They switched leaders, and this guy who was supposed to be the adult in the room, who knew finance and had a wonderful resume, came in. He said that this was a serious point of crisis, that we are going to get serious, that we are going to rein in spending and get control of the public finances so that we can grow the economy and deal with the current challenges.
What has happened since then?
He did not do any of that. This is a Prime Minister who promised Canadians that they were going to rein in the general bloat of government that has occurred under the Liberals. The size of the public sector in Canada is the only thing that grew under the government. They added 100,000 federal public servants, yet service gets no better for Canadians. They cannot run anything over there. There are 59,000 employees at the Canada Revenue Agency, and they still cannot answer the phone.
The government was supposed to have someone serious at the helm now, someone who would get control of our finances and bring the budget under control. It has not happened.
Liberals promised, in the election, to rein in and reduce the expenditures on consultants. In the first estimates that they tabled, they have gone from, I believe, $19 billion to $26 billion. I do not have it in front of me. That is what I recall.
They have increased their spending on consultants. They told Canadians that they were going to rein this in, that this was the whole point of the change of leadership, that there was a change of style.
They keep talking about a new government, even though it is the same front bench and there have been the same policies over the last 10 years. It has not happened.
We are getting close to a new budget. I might add that, on top of the $500 billion in capital flight that has occurred under the government before the current Prime Minister arrived, it has accelerated since then. Another $60 billion has left the Canadian economy.
When investment dollars leave the country, that means there is no investment in plant and equipment and technology, which would help drive up productivity so that Canadians can earn more and live better, fuller lives and cope with the increased costs that have crept in under the government.
It is not happening. Wages are not rising. Unemployment is rising, with 900 jobs lost in my city last week in one layoff, announced by Imperial Oil.
These guys have spent the last 10 years chasing investment and jobs out of, especially, the energy sector. We call on them to fulfill the promise that they made in the election and start getting serious, finally, about the budget. We have had a PBO report and a PBO committee appearance, in the last couple of weeks, that are just devastating.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that the government's fiscal plan is unsustainable. He called it “stupefying”. He said that it is “unsustainable”.
The Liberals always claim these different measurements, such as declining debt-to-GDP ratio. When the debt-to-GDP ratio started to come up, it was our AAA credit rating. We will see them bait and switch every time on their goalposts.
That credit rating is at risk. They are trying to trick Canadians with a new accounting methodology as their deficits continue to get even worse.
It is time for the House to call upon the Liberal government to stop plagiarizing Justin Trudeau's failed policies and recognize that deficits drive investment and jobs down and the cost of living up.
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the deficits and how Conservatives left this great surplus, as the member alluded to in his speech.
Stephen Harper had three surpluses. The first one was a $13-billion surplus. We ask ourselves how he ended up with such a large surplus. It is because Paul Martin left him with that $13-billion surplus a year before. The second year that Harper was in the House, he ran a $9-billion surplus. After that, it was deficit after deficit after deficit.
Finally, when it got to 2015, he referenced how a surplus was left. How did they leave that surplus?
They left it on the backs of veterans and by depleting our military investment to under 1% of GDP for the first time in recorded Canadian history.
Could the member please explain how this great surplus in 2015—
Opposition Motion—Cost of DeficitsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member's remarks reveal the exact point we are trying to make. There were five prime ministers between the two Trudeaus, and all five of them took fiscal responsibility seriously—
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Brian Mulroney did not run a single surplus.
Opposition Motion—Cost of DeficitsBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker John Nater
Order. That is debate.
The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot.
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. Brian Mulroney inherited a basket case that is even worse than what we have today. Nine years was not long enough for Brian Mulroney to undo the damage that Pierre Trudeau did to this country. Every time we have someone named Trudeau running this country, they destroy the energy industry in my city and wreak fiscal and economic vandalism on Canadians.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is always fun to sit here and listen to my Conservative and Liberal colleagues argue about who ran the smallest deficit or the largest surplus. The fact is, every time there has been a surplus in Canada, particularly under Paul Martin, the savings came from cutting transfers to the provinces, nowhere else. That is my first point.
My second point involves my Conservative friend, whom I would like to congratulate on his speech. I agree with him. The Liberals' management of public finances is a disaster, and it has been for a very long time. Oil subsidies are one of the reasons for that.
Would my Conservative colleagues agree with me that sound fiscal management would require the government to stop handing out subsidies to oil companies?
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Crowfoot, AB
Mr. Speaker, I will address one specific example that occurred under the Liberal government. From time to time, we hear its members patting themselves on the back over the Trans Mountain pipeline. They congratulate themselves for nationalizing what was private infrastructure and subsidizing it to a staggering sum, so we ended up using public money to build something that should have been built privately. It would have been built privately if the government did not chase the investment out of Canada.