Debates of Oct. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Cost of Deficits

[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?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, never before in history has there been an example of increasing taxes on businesses resulting in lower prices to consumers. I do not think we are going to get to a full discussion of that issue here today, but I welcome follow-up discussions with the member at a future date.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my speech this morning with a movie review, if I may. The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, is widely considered to be James Cameron's masterpiece, won 11 Oscars and brought in $2 billion at the box office. Of course, I am talking about Titanic.

One of the most memorable scenes from that movie is when the ship is first coming up on the iceberg and the lookout yells, “Iceberg, right ahead!” All of a sudden, the captain and crew spring into action, reverse the engines and turn the wheel and rudder as hard as they can to try to save the ship from hitting the iceberg. Unfortunately, it is too late. The ship crashes into the iceberg and sinks to the bottom of the ocean.

Historians have long agreed that if the lookout had seen the iceberg just a few seconds earlier, the ship could have turned in time and the disaster could have been avoided. Imagine for a minute if, instead of seeing the iceberg only one minute or two minutes before the crash, they had seen the iceberg 10 years in advance. How would events have turned out differently? It would not have made for a very good movie. If the lookout could have seen the iceberg from miles and miles away, it would have been pretty easy, presumably, to avoid crashing into it.

Ten years is how much warning the Liberal government has had about the dangers of Justin Trudeau's reckless spending and the continuation of those reckless policies under the current Prime Minister for the past six months. However, it was not always like this.

A generation ago, the Chrétien-Martin Liberals were the party of fiscal responsibility. Former finance minister Paul Martin once said the Liberal government would balance the budget “come hell or high water.” Tough choices were made in the 1990s, but eventually, the books were balanced, because the government understood that a nation cannot spend its way into prosperity with money it does not have. Conservatives may have disagreed with some of the decisions that were made along the way, but on the core principle of fiscal responsibility, there was support from both parties.

Unfortunately, in more recent times, Justin Trudeau said the budget would balance itself. In 2015, he said the Liberals would run three small deficits for three short years and then the budget would be balanced. Fast-forward to December 2024, when the Liberals were to present their fall economic statement. By that time, their deficit had ballooned to the figure of $62 billion, an amount so embarrassing that the finance minister chose to resign that morning instead of facing the embarrassment that would inevitably come with a deficit so massive and out of control.

That raises the question of how much the deficit is in 2025. Sadly, no one knows, because the Liberal government has until this point procrastinated, postponed and delayed the tabling of a budget and has continued to sail full steam ahead as though nothing was the matter.

We got a glimpse of it recently from the Parliamentary Budget Officer when he testified before the government operations and estimates committee. He described the government's finances as “unsustainable”. He went on to say:

It's not a funny fiscal outlook. It's a really serious fiscal outlook. We don't lightly use the word “unsustainable”. Unsustainable means you don't have the option of saying, “Maybe I'll wait a couple of years and see how things go.” It means, if you don't change, this is done.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer might as well have stood up and yelled, “Iceberg, right ahead!”

The Liberal government needs to change course before it crashes the ship into the iceberg, but unfortunately, the current captain of the ship is continuing on the same course Justin Trudeau had us on. We are already seeing the harms caused to our economy and our standard of living.

In 2015, the Liberals said that their deficit spending would lead to investment, but 10 years later, investment per worker has fallen by 10%. The burden of debts and deficits on our economy over the last 10 years has caused us to have the worst per capita economic growth rate in the G7. Under the current Prime Minister's watch, since he took office earlier this year, 86,000 net jobs have been lost, leaving Canada with the second-highest unemployment rate in the G7.

Food inflation has doubled. In fact, in a recent report from Food Banks Canada, the government received a failing grade when it comes to food insecurity, down from a C grade just two years ago.

Since the Prime Minister took over six months ago, $54 billion in net investment has left the country. Without investments in new factory equipment, new farm machinery and new businesses, the productivity of the Canadian worker and the standard of living of Canadians will continue to decline.

Another unfortunate thing about the Liberals' massive, out-of-control deficit is that the number has gotten so big that it is difficult for people to understand just how big it is. When the price we pay at the grocery store, gas pump or a favourite restaurant goes up, we understand right away how much money that is. This is because people make these purchases all the time and notice when a tank of gas or a favourite meal costs more than before. However, when we are talking about the size of the federal deficit, the number is so huge that it almost becomes meaningless to ordinary people. That is especially true when the Liberals refuse to table a budget and hide how much the deficit actually is.

For argument's sake, let us take the $62-billion deficit from last December's fall economic statement. How much is $62 billion? How big does that amount of money look?

The largest-denomination bank note issued by the Bank of Canada is the $100 bill. If someone were to go down to the bank, go to the ATM and withdraw $62 billion in $100 bills, it would be 620 million $100 bills. Each $100 bill is about 0.1 millimetres thick, which means that if we were to stack those 620 million $100 bills one on top of the other, the stack would reach 62 kilometres high. Put another way, that is about seven times the height of Mount Everest. If we were to use $10 bills, we would have 70 Mount Everests. Using rolls of toonies, there would be enough toonies to wrap around the entire planet. If the rolls were loonies, there would be enough loonies to wrap around the entire planet twice.

Fortunately, pennies have been taken out of circulation, so I will stop my analogies there, but I hope I have made my point about the enormity of this economic iceberg Canada is sailing into. The Liberal Titanic may have gotten a new captain last winter, but the course that was charted 10 years ago under Justin Trudeau has not changed. We are still sailing straight into an Everest-sized economic iceberg. It is time to change course.

I encourage members today to support the Conservatives' motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, we could use that iceberg analogy for Canada, as the member just did, the United States, England or any of the G7 countries. What we find is that, when it comes to net debt-to-GDP ratio, Canada has the lowest in the entire G7.

The member kind of makes the point that I was trying to make earlier. Conservatives try to make Canada look as if it is broken. Canadians sent us a very strong message back in April that they want us to work together to build a strong Canada.

I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on the other G7 countries' debt compared to the iceberg.

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this reminds me of the elementary school student who comes home with an F on his report card and says to his mom and dad that other kids flunked their report cards too. It does not mean someone is doing a good job just because they can point out someone who has a record that is just as bad.

It is true that governments around the world have struggled with reining in unnecessary spending, but that is no comfort to Canadians struggling to make ends meet, struggling with the cost of groceries and struggling to pay rent. The fact that other countries are having similar problems is cold comfort and is not an excuse for the government to not get our fiscal house in order.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals would have us believe that everything is great in Canada. If we listen to them, they are constantly promoting the big projects window they have put in place.

They also talk about LNG Canada. I would like to point out that when the Liberals came into power, there were 14 applications for LNG plants across this country. In the last 10 years, only one of those has been built.

Does my hon. colleague have comments on that?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more frustrating than world leaders from Germany, Greece, Poland and other countries saying they would like to buy Canadian oil and gas so they can stop buying from Russia and dictators in the Middle East, and the response from the Liberals being that there is no business case for oil and gas exports to Europe or other allies around the world. There is nothing more frustrating than having all these economic opportunities literally sitting underneath our feet while the Liberals keep making up excuses about why we should not be developing our resources and why we should not be making life better for Canadians.

It would be wonderful to get these opportunities and projects off the ground to make life better not only for Canadians but also for our allies around the world.

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

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk of fiscal irresponsibility from the last two speakers.

However, I would like our colleagues to explain this. If Canada is such a basket case, how do we still have a AAA credit rating?

[Michael Kram, Conservative, Regina—Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting how the Liberals keep moving the goalposts. I remember when Paul Martin was prime minister. The goalposts were to balance the budget “come hell or high water”. A few years later, the Liberals said they were not going to balance the budget, but it would be a function of GDP. They would keep it under a certain percentage of GDP. Now they are talking about separating the deficits between operational deficits and fixed assets, or whatever the term is.

It is so frustrating that, as we are sailing straight toward an iceberg and straight toward a $62-billion deficit, the Liberals are trying to play a bait-and-switch game and move the goalposts. It is time for the Liberals to take some responsibility for the fiscal mess we are in and turn this ship around.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to make sure we get to speakers in the right order, so I want to time this point of order now.

The member of Parliament for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, when I asked him a question after his speech about out-of-control corporate greed, responded identifying me as a Conservative MP.

I could not be farther from a Conservative MP. I want to give him an opportunity to correct the record, if he could.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The member's political affiliation is noted.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Guelph.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

I am very pleased to participate in today's debate. Our government is well aware of the fact that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. They have a lot of bills to play, housing is expensive and it costs a lot to buy groceries to feed their families.

However, this is something that is happening around the world. We understand this reality and we are looking at all the issues. That is why we are proposing many measures to help Canadians keep more money in their pockets.

Canada's new government is focused on delivering a plan to address the cost of living challenges impacting Canadians across the country. That is what we are interested in, not cherry-picking data.

Let me give a few examples.

Very early on, the government delivered a middle-class tax cut to allow hard-working Canadians to keep more money in their pockets. Nearly 22 million Canadians are already benefiting from our middle-class tax cut. This tax cut will save two-income families up to $840 in 2026. Going forward, it is expected to deliver over $27 billion in tax savings to Canadians over the next five years. This rate reduction will benefit Canadians across the country. The bulk of the middle-class tax cut will go to those with incomes in the two lowest tax brackets, including nearly half to those in the first bracket of $57,375 and below in 2025.

With this middle-class tax cut, the lowest marginal personal income tax rate was reduced from 15% to 14% effective July 1. Now this tax cut is helping hard-working Canadians keep more of their paycheques to spend where it matters most.

Our government is also well aware that there is a housing crisis in Canada. Although we have seen improvements recently in some cities, too many Canadians, especially young people, are having a hard time finding housing that they can afford. That is why our government is implementing an ambitious new approach to increase Canada's housing supply.

For example, the government is moving forward to eliminate the goods and services tax for first-time homebuyers of new homes at or under $1 million and to reduce the GST for first-time homebuyers of new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million. We need the support of the budget to do that. We are talking about significant support, as first-time homebuyers can save up to $50,000. Altogether, it is expected that this tax cut will deliver $3.9 billion in savings to Canadians over five years. With this targeted support measure, the government is allowing more young Canadians to enter the housing market and, by doing so, realizing the dream of home ownership. Through this GST relief, we are ensuring that first-time homebuyers have lower upfront housing costs and more money in their pockets for related expenses.

In addition, there are a number of measures to increase the supply of housing. I am delighted to note that this GST relief will also have a dynamic effect on increasing supply, spurring the construction of new homes across the country.

Our commitment to helping build more homes from coast to coast to coast does not stop there. We recently launched Build Canada Homes, a brand new federal agency tasked with building affordable housing at scale. This is wonderful, and it has been too long in coming.

Build Canada Homes will quickly build affordable, prefabricated housing on federal land. The agency will also help fight homelessness by building supportive and transitional housing in collaboration with provinces, territories, municipalities, and indigenous communities. In my riding of Guelph, we have had great success in recent years in creating essential supports to combat homelessness, and we need to see much more of this across Canada. This program will help maintain very affordable community housing for low-income households.

In short, Build Canada Homes will accelerate housing construction and give private builders the certainty they need to build even more homes. With Build Canada Homes, our government is transforming public-private partnership. The program has been very well received by everyone in the sector. Our approach is to use modern construction methods while fostering the emergence of a whole new Canadian housing industry.

The government also cancelled the consumer carbon price to refocus carbon pricing on large emitters.

In Guelph, the child care support program this year saw daily child care costs reduce from $35 to $22 per day. That means thousands of dollars in savings for people who have children in child care.

With all of these measures, the government is delivering lower taxes, bringing down costs, putting money back in the pockets of Canadians and supporting them through a number of initiatives like trades retraining and investing in industries that are struggling right now, in order to make sure we keep those jobs. However, it is important to understand that to continue supporting Canadians, we need to manage Canada's fiscal finances carefully. When I was on a city council, I brought in value-for-money audits and went line by line through the budgets. I really care about this.

We on this side of the House are guided by fiscal discipline. We will spend less and invest more. We are going to balance the government's operating spending with revenues over the next three years by cutting waste, capping the public service, ending duplication and deploying technology to improve public sector productivity. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue will deliver the details of the new government's plan on November 4 by presenting budget 2025 in the House. It will be a comprehensive, effective, ambitious and prudent federal budget that will focus on growth, productivity and long-term prosperity.

I will also add an additional point with respect to housing.

As announced by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue earlier this week, the updated fall budget cycle will more closely align with construction season and provide increased certainty and predictability for developers and investors.

As you can see, our government has already invested and will continue investing to help Canadians weather challenges associated with the high cost of living and to support our industries. We have lowered taxes and are supporting new housing construction. However, we are also aware of the need to manage public funds prudently.

With budget 2025, our government will lay the groundwork for building a new industrial strategy that will transform our economy. I am a member of the industry committee, and we are looking at that right now. We have to go from an economy of reliance on specific trade partners, such as our neighbours to the south, to one that is more resilient to global shocks; the new Canadian economy will be built on a solid foundation of strong Canadian industries and bolstered by international trade partners. I believe that is exactly what our country needs now. This is what Canadians need.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I always find it a little strange when I hear the Liberals boast about providing relief to the middle class with tax cuts, when it is the middle class that is currently struggling the most because of the cost of living. They are drowning.

Despite that, right after the election, the Liberals decided to forgo nearly $90 billion in potential revenue. Countertariffs were to be put in place, but we have yet to see any of that money. Then there was the digital services tax, which has been scrapped. There are plenty of measures that could have helped and that could have been used to ease the burden on middle-class families, the majority of whom are living $200 away from bankruptcy.

With every paycheque, most Canadian families are $200 away from being in the red. This is no joke. The government boasts about having eased the burden on the middle class. Meanwhile, it is sending $83 billion to the oil industry. The member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin says that this generates revenue. Wow. For an economist, that is impressive.

I would like to know what measures will actually be put in place to support and provide relief—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the member a chance to respond.

The member for Guelph.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the city of Guelph is one of the most vulnerable to the U.S. tariffs that are hurting our industries. However, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has been telling us for several months that countertariffs are not necessarily the best way to protect our industries, which employ all these people in my city and in my colleague's city.

We need to look at the bigger picture. We have an inflation rate of 1.9%, which is down from 8.1% in June 2022. The rate has been within the Bank of Canada's target range for over a year and a half. Even during and after the pandemic, Canada had one of the best inflation rates among G7 countries. The Bank of Canada was the first bank—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member because we need to move on to questions and comments.

The hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we hear, again, another Liberal who is standing up and saying that things have never been better in Canada. However, we are consistently saying that inflation is out of control and unemployment is up dramatically. We have seen billions of dollars leaving this country and being invested in the United States.

I want to get the member on the record clearly. Does the member think that things are going well in Canada? If she does not, what is the cause of that?

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at Canada in a global context. Are there things that could be going better? Absolutely, but Canada has the second-largest foreign-investment-stock-to-GDP ratio among the G20 nations. In 2024, we had a record of foreign direct investment in Canada of $85.5 billion, which was up 36% from 2023.

Are things rosy? No, but how about bringing back rent control in Ontario? How about paying people in Ontario reasonable Ontario disability supports or Ontario Works?

The Conservative Party wants to lay all of these challenges at the feet of this government, and that is very narrow-minded.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the last comment that my colleague made, in particular about how the Conservatives, no matter what the issue is, will stop at nothing to suggest that the only cause of the struggles people might be having is squarely the Liberal government.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we heard them cheer; yes, they do agree with that.

However, the reality is that there are many other factors that affect people's lives, such as global economic factors. We have a war in Ukraine, which is a country that produces one-third of the world's grain. Definitely, when there is a war going on, there will be inflation as it relates to products. I wonder if the member would like to expand on that.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that there is absolutely food inflation, but what is driving some of this food inflation? There are supply chains, climate change and lobbyists for Loblaws, which was caught price fixing. We need to look at what is happening on a global scale. We need to tackle the issues we can tackle. We are doing that. We are investing in Canadians. We are investing in industry. I invite the members opposite to support our budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to today's Conservative motion. This is kind of an emotional moment for me, because, for once, we will finally be able to vote in favour of a Conservative motion. It is not too populist and it contains pretty accurate information. It also contains some very important statements.

I will not reread the entire motion because that has been done several times today. However, I will read my favourite sentence, and I would like members of the House to pay attention and to take a moment to think about what it means: “[E]very dollar the government spends comes out of the pockets of Canadians”, Quebeckers and citizens.

I deliberately paused for a moment so that members could think about that. That sentence still applies when the government gives contracts to its friends, to two or three guys working out of a basement whose only job is to get government contracts and then subcontract them out while keeping a cut for themselves. Everyone know what I was talking about there. Every dollar spent comes out of citizens' pockets. When we talk about the cost of groceries or the cost of housing and members are pointing fingers at everyone else, the fact remains that the citizens are the ones who bear these costs.

I see members here in the House of Commons voting against minimum indexing, not even decent indexing, for old age pensions starting at age 65. However, groceries are not any cheaper at age 65, 66 or 67 than they are at age 76. One could even say that they are more expensive because it seems as though people generally eat less and less as they get older. I am being somewhat ironic here, and I hope that everyone takes it that way, but these are serious and important issues.

I am concerned. I am concerned about the new Prime Minister. I will not say “the new government”, because another sentence in the motion says that this so-called new government is following the same plan as the old one. I quite agree with that statement as well. The Liberal leader may have a new face, but putting a new label on a jar of peanut butter does not change the fact that it is still the same old peanut butter in the jar. That analogy has been used in the House before, and I really like it. I want to remind people that this is the same government that we have had since 2015. The Liberals will boast about how interest rates have just gone down and about how wonderful they are, but when interest rates go down, it is because the economy is slowing down. When it comes right down to it, we have a government that is bragging about a downturn in economic activity and that seems to takes pride in the fact that the GDP per capita is falling. That is not supposed to happen in a well-run G7 country. Everything I said in that last sentence is true except for two words, “well” and “run”.

This country is badly run. That is why we are happy to vote in favour of the motion. I say this for the benefit of my Conservative colleagues who are listening. I am not joking. I am genuinely happy to be able to vote with them. Often, only half of what is in the motions they present to us is true. They choose extremely important topics, but then they throw in a bunch of populist rhetoric and facile statements that force the adults in the room, by which I always mean the Bloc Québécois, to vote against them, because we cannot vote in favour of things that are not true. Today, though, we are happy. I congratulate the Conservatives. I want to give them a pat on the back and encourage them to keep going like this. That is what we call positive reinforcement. Today is a good day.

Ordinary folks are stretched to the limit, even if inflation is under control. We are glad it is under control, but it was so out of control for so long that prices are still too high compared to wages. That is the problem, and for the members opposite who are making such bold claims today, I would like to remind them of a little concept relating to public administration. It is possible and normal for a government, whether it is the federal government or the government of Quebec or a province, to run the occasional deficit. A deficit is a buffer that is there to help the economy. However, it is not normal to have repeated deficits, especially when the economy was already doing well to begin with. That is the problem. A government should run a deficit to stimulate economic growth when the economy is not doing well.

However, deficits have now been run so regularly and for so long that the government is in the process of inventing new ways to do accounting. The Liberals are going to present them on November 4, and I am looking forward to seeing what they have come up with. I hope Canadians will be savvy enough to see through the scam. The Liberals are going to present a deficit that will probably exceed $100 billion, but it will not show up because they will have separated the good debt from the bad debt.

When we pay a debt, we have to actually pay the debt. The money has to be there. Furthermore, every time a government goes into debt, it means less money for direct services to the public, for direct transfers to the public. This is appalling. I am using that word advisedly, and I do not think it is too strong. We are sick of seeing this, we are outraged, and we would like the truth to be told. We are here as elected representatives of the people. An election campaign is supposed to last a month and a half. Now it is over, so can we talk now and look at what we can do for the common good? I know I am very naive, but that is part of my charm.

People are hurting, and if we want to help them cope, we need to address the root causes of this problem. One of the ways that the government can help low-income individuals in a time of crisis is to give them direct support. I spoke about old age security earlier, but I also want to talk about employment insurance. How many years has this government been promising to reform employment insurance? To answer my own question, it is now 2025 and they started talking about reform in 2015, or even before that. That is over 10 years ago. There has been no progress on that front, and yet people are required to contribute to the EI program even though nearly half of contributors are not even entitled to benefits.

Imagine people shopping around for home insurance and being told by one insurance company that it cannot reimburse them if their house burns down. Obviously, they will immediately move on to the next company. However, workers in this country are bound hand and foot. They are stuck with this lousy government.

If the government is incapable of managing money, it should transfer it to Quebec. Quebec will know how to manage it. In fact, the money ought to have been sent back to Quebec anyway because the federal government has a tendency to take advantage of crises and tough times to further centralize power. Do members know why the government centralizes power? It is because it has too much taxation power relative to its responsibilities. The government is not going to win many votes by making transfers to the provinces and Quebec based on the principle of sound administration. That just sounds like something that would be done by someone who is capable of managing their affairs properly.

The government members just want to make grand announcements from a balcony, outside on a sunny day, with the wind in their hair as they proclaim, “We're going to help Canadians, we're here for Canadians, we're going to help the middle class”. However, what we are seeing is that the middle class has been getting poorer the entire time. People are now turning to food banks. The list goes on.

Regarding grocery prices, as the Bloc Québécois agriculture and agri-food critic, I want to mention that the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food has taken a very smart, meticulous approach to studying this issue and that we have identified issues and put forward solutions. This may not be of interest to everybody, but we have found solutions.

For example, the code of conduct aimed at improving the bargaining power of small suppliers with respect to big grocery chains is still being implemented. It is a long and arduous process, but it is a measure that could change things. Let me give another example. If we want to tackle the cost of food, we need to stop increasing the cost of inputs. When we choose to tax fertilizers, we should not be surprised when food products become more expensive. There is a logic to all this.

I would also like to correct some misinformation that we are being given. The government is telling us that Canada's debt is acceptable because it represents about 45% of the GDP—it was 42% before, so it is still 3% higher—and it is comparing us to other G7 countries. In France, for example, there are no provinces that can incur debt. In other words, we are talking about total debt. In Canada, if you add the debt of Quebec and the provinces to that of the federal government, you reach about 100% to 110% of GDP. That is equivalent to France's and the United Kingdom's debt, and close to that of Italy, so things are not going so well after all. We need to start taking this seriously and helping people who need it.

I still have a lot more to say. Let us start by cutting the infamous $83 billion for oil companies.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, toward the end of his speech, the member was getting on to some of the financial trickery we hear in the Liberal government's talking points. The Liberals speak of declining debt-to-GDP, yet the debt-to-GDP ratio is going up. The per capita GDP is lower now than it was in 2014.

I wonder whether the member could comment further on the Liberals' selective use of accounting and, maybe perhaps in particular, the distraction the finance minister has brought up, where he is distracting Canadians by trying to trick them with changing the method by which the Liberals publicly disclose their finances.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by sincerely thanking the member for asking a relevant question that also allows me to continue my explanation. The debt-to-GDP ratio is used to determine whether we are capable of paying our debt. Someone who earns $150,000 a year and owes $50,000 is in a much better position than someone who earns $65,000 a year and owes $50,000.

Right now, the government is using double-talk by only mentioning the federal debt. The truth is that Canadians pay more than just the federal debt. We also pay the debts of the provinces and of Quebec. The ratio is a lot higher than we are being led to believe. The Liberals are going to hide part of the debt in the upcoming budget. I will continue my explanation the next time I speak.