Debates of Oct. 27th, 2026

Opposition Motion—Appearance of the Prime Minister before the Standing Committee on Finance

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the budget looks like the last budget, then I understand completely why government members would not want to be questioned on it, not on a Friday and not on a Monday. The government introducing a budget on a Thursday before a break week, and then taking that next week, tells us everything we need to know. That is why this motion is so important.

It is important to get the Prime Minister at committee to explain his comments, to explain why he told the House that affordability is better than it has ever been and to explain to Canadian families why he is charging them $6,000 a year while they cannot buy raspberries or take a vacation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party says that programs, such as the dental care program that provides dental services for seniors who are on fixed income, are a failure. The deputy leader of the Conservative Party says that the food program in our schools, which feeds 400,000 children, is a failure.

I think it is time that the Conservative Party wakes up. If Conservatives are concerned about affordability, then they had better start supporting these programs or step aside and let the government do its job.

[Melissa Lantsman, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party says that the House leader is a failure. His answer was a failure, and all of those programs that he has introduced in the House are failures, because everything is worse than it was before he started.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians deserve more for their money. Hard work should be rewarded here in Canada. Those who get up every morning to go to work and those who are trying to retire after having worked hard their whole lives deserve a good paycheque.

However, after 11 years of this Liberal government, the more time passes, the less work is rewarded. A larger share of wages in Canada is being eaten up by inflation. People even have to hand what they earn at work over to the government in the form of very high taxes. However, the government will argue that taxes pay for services. Is that true? Are the services we receive commensurate with the taxes that we pay?

The fastest rising-cost under this government is not the cost of services, health care or benefits for children or seniors. It is the cost of the interest payments on our national debt, which will be $60 billion this year. That is more than the government is spending on health transfers, more than it is spending on services, more than the total amount Canadians pay in GST, twice as much as the government is spending on benefits for children and much more than it is spending on our soldiers.

What does the interest on the national debt cost a family of four?

Five years ago, a family of four had to pay about $2,500 a year in taxes to cover the interest on the national debt. Today, that same family must pay $6,000 in taxes simply to cover the interest on the debt. In four years' time, that family will be paying $8,000 a year just to service the interest on the debt, not to pay down the debt itself.

That makes debt interest the fastest-growing expenditure of all. At the same time, the Prime Minister's record deficits are driving up the cost of living by fuelling inflation.

The debt situation is far worse today than it was a year ago. Canadians were promised a Prime Minister who would be more prudent than Justin Trudeau, but instead he has doubled the deficits. He did so after resorting to creative accounting in the government's books.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, this Prime Minister plans to add another $733 billion to the national debt over the next five years. That means an additional $40,000 in federal debt for every Canadian family and every household, on top of the $1.3 trillion already owed.

Canadians are being crushed by the government's debt. What are the consequences? More people are turning to food banks. An entire generation is being locked out of home ownership. Fuel prices at the pump are among the highest in the western world. Poverty is on the rise.

That has to change. Canadians deserve better. The goal of the official opposition is to save them money, save their jobs, keep them safe, repair and reduce immigration, and put Canada first.

That is why we are proposing to invite the Prime Minister to appear before the committee so that he can explain to Canadians how a family is going to pay $6,000 a year in interest on the national debt. It is also so that we can put forward our solutions, such as cutting down on red tape, consultants, corporate welfare, foreign aid, money for bogus refugees and more, in order to reduce the deficit and restore fiscal balance. The size of government must be reduced, along with the burden that government imposes on Canadians.

We want to return to a country where everyone who works hard can have a big paycheque that stays in their pocket and where the dollar keeps its value. Greater purchasing power will enable our young people to buy a home, our families to buy food and our seniors to have the excellent retirement that they deserve. That is the Conservatives' goal.

For those reasons, we are calling on all parties to work with us to fulfill and restore the promise of Canada here, at home.

Hard work should pay off. When someone puts in a long day's work and bring home a paycheque, the money should stay in their pocket, and the dollars should retain value. The money should buy affordable food, homes and fuel. People should be able to put their kids in sporting activities that improve their health, their discipline and the quality of life they enjoy. They should be able to retire knowing that the money they saved up will buy them the necessities of life and allow them the freedom to enjoy the years they have earned. That means they should get value for money from the government.

When people pay taxes, they expect something in return. Are they getting it? Well, what is the fastest-growing expense in the government's budget? Is it seniors benefits? Is it health care? Is it the child benefit? Is it police? Is it our military? No, it is none of the above. Under the Prime Minister, for the first time in over two decades, the single biggest expense is interest on the national debt. It is an expense that has more than doubled in the last five years.

Now, $60 billion of Canadian tax money goes to bankers and bondholders. That is more than we spend on health care transfers, more than we spend on the military and more than we spend on the child benefit. In fact, it is almost twice as much as we spend on the child benefit. Not only has it gotten worse; it threatens to get worse still. It is up from 10¢ to 13.6¢, almost 14¢, of every dollar the government spends that goes straight to bankers and bondholders for interest. This is the highest share of our budget since 2007.

Here is what it means for the average family of four. In 2021, interest on the debt cost it $2,500 a year. Right now it is $6,000 a year, and in four years, under the government's plan, it will be $8,000 a year. To put it in perspective, we are now spending vastly more on debt interest than we collect in GST. That is right: Every time we make a purchase at a retail outlet and we see that GST on the receipt, we should know that 100% of what we paid is not going to health care or our troops but is going to pay interest on the national debt.

The situation, though, I have to say, is not as bad as it seems. It is worse, because the Prime Minister has cooked the books. He has decided that if he divides the debt and deficit up onto three separate credit cards, it will not cost as much. He says that some of the spending is operating cost. Some, he arbitrarily says, is investment. Further sums are for Crown corporations. At the end of the day, it is all money the government has to borrow and on which it has to pay future interest, all of which is a burden on the shoulders of taxpayers.

To be clear, what the Prime Minister calls investment is fuzzy, undefined, and based on no generally accepted accounting principle. No other government in the world follows his definitions. It is simply what he picks in order to reduce what he calls his operating budget. Well, even with cooking the books, the Prime Minister has not managed to do that either.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reports that operating spending is up 11% in just over a year, rising well over three times faster than the growth in the population and the overall economy, and the Prime Minister intends to add $733 billion to our national debt over the next five years, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer. This works out to $40,000 in new debt for every single family in this country, and to get what? It is bigger lineups at food banks, a generation of youth who cannot afford a home, higher insolvencies, jobs leaving our country and our brightest people moving south. It the biggest increase of any country in the world of people exiting to go to the United States of America. It is “elbows up, Canadians out”. That is a bad result for all those hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit spending.

There is a better way. We could restore the value of hard work by cutting bureaucracy, consultants, foreign aid, handouts to fake and phony refugees, and other wasted money in order to bring down debt, inflation and taxes; to make our money worth something; to ensure that our dollars are spent on health care, military, policing and borders, not on bankers and bondholders; and to restore the promise of this country, where anyone who works hard gets a great life on a safe street in a home they own, with meat and potatoes on the dinner table and a wonderful retirement under our proud flag. Let us make it happen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hate to disappoint the Leader of the Conservative Party, but I can tell him that Canada is indeed not broken. Canada is still the best country in the world to call home.

The Leader of the Opposition downplays the importance of investment, but just last month, in September, the Prime Minister and the Canadian government invited the world to come to Toronto. What we saw was half a trillion dollars of potential investment. That is completely unheard of in Canadian history. In collaborative co-operation, working with our provincial entities and major projects, again, we are nearing half a trillion dollars. The federal collaboration is working. Investment is looking into Canada like it has never before. It is time the Conservative Party recognized that Canada is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I need to give the time for the member's response.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing broken is the record on the other side of the aisle. I have never heard any party so capable of bragging triumphantly of promises it has not yet kept. The member got up and did not say that the investment had occurred. He said that it has the potential to one day occur. Someday over the rainbow, if we just follow it, we might get to a pot of gold. We just need another summit, another signing ceremony, another photo op or a bunch of new made-up MBA isms, such as catalyze this and synergy that.

We will not build an economy out of buzzwords or unrealized promises. We will build an economy by getting the government out of the way and off the backs of the Canadian people to realize their real potential.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative motion says that the Liberal government is spending more on servicing the debt than on health care transfers.

If the Conservatives ever managed to reduce debt servicing, would they commit to increase health transfers to Quebec and the provinces?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that the Liberal government spends more on servicing the debt than on health care. Conservatives believe that it should be the other way around.

Canadians pay income tax and other taxes to get health care services. They deserve to have the best health care service in the world, but this is far from the case. Our current health care system includes 6 million people with no family doctor. The waiting lists keep getting longer. Within the OECD, we rank among the worst countries when it comes to health care services.

One problem is that the Liberals are diverting money from our system to bankers to pay down the interest on our debt. We should pay down our debt and support health.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, oftentimes in the House when we talk about these subjects, the common response we get from the members opposite is, “What would Conservatives cut?” I am curious if the Leader of the Opposition would like to expand on the Conservatives' exact approach to practising fiscal restraint, which we desperately need in this country right now.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals always ask, as if it were some kind of gotcha question, “What would we cut?” We have only found about $200 billion of savings that we have identified and stated publicly. To start with, there is the Alto rail disaster. The government wants to spend $150 billion on a train that is already off the tracks even though it has not built a single inch of rail. That is $150 billion right there.

Massive increases in corporate welfare, which favours corporate power brokers with massive interest-free loans, grants, subsidies and other favours, would be reversed. This is companies such as Brookfield and others that the Prime Minister has a personal interest in. While he hides his money abroad, he mostly forces Canadians to subsidize his corporate interests here at home.

We would get rid of the deluxe benefits for fake and phony refugees, who get more benefit from our tax dollars than our hard-working seniors do. We would cut back on foreign aid and stop sending our money out of Canada. It belongs to the Canadian people. We would bring it back to our people.

I just came up with four or five excellent examples of how we could cut back the enormous, wasteful, morbidly obese government we have on the other side of the aisle, so Canadians can have a more rewarding life.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Kings—Hants.

We just heard a speech by the Leader of the Opposition that was once again full of catchphrases. I think he came here just to record his social media sound bites for this week. If Canadians are interested in practical measures, then they need to look to this side of the House. We are implementing measures to strengthen the Canadian economy, which is working for everyone.

I think that Canadians see right through the official opposition's tactics when they hear this kind of rhetoric. We need only look at the results of the most recent by-elections and polling numbers. Canadians clearly favour our approach, which is based on practical measures that make a difference in people's lives.

On that note, I will focus on the content of my speech, because today's motion deals with the cost of living. To address the cost of living, we can implement immediate measures. I am thinking of the enhancement of what was previously known as the GST/HST credit and the tax cut for the middle class that we announced last year. These are measures that put money back into Canadians' pockets now.

That said, we need to think from a medium- and long-term perspective. I am thinking in particular of the national food security strategy that we launched earlier this year. This strategy aims to address factors within Canada's agri-food ecosystem to help stabilize grocery prices over the medium and long term. One of the pillars of this strategy is to increase food production in Canada. To achieve this, we are implementing a range of programs designed to support innovation in the food sector, help our entrepreneurs modernize their equipment, and assist them in acquiring the capabilities needed to do more processing in Canada. Our goal is to have more Canadian food on our plates and to ensure that our entrepreneurs already active in the agri-food sector have the means to modernize and become more efficient: With the same workforce, how could they improve their equipment and processes so they can produce more food right here at home? I am also thinking of all the tax incentives we are putting in place to increase our production of fruits and vegetables in Canada year-round, particularly through our incentives for the construction of greenhouses and other controlled-environment growing facilities.

Our goal is to increase Canada's food sovereignty and reduce our dependence on others. Countries that are dependent on international trade are more likely to be affected by supply chain disruptions. That is why conflicts affect the price of groceries in Canada. However, if we boost domestic production, we are less likely to see price fluctuations based on changes happening abroad.

I am also thinking about the exchange rate. When we import a lot of products and the exchange rate varies, that also affects prices. Strengthening our food sovereignty at home helps stabilize grocery prices over the longer term.

Boosting competition is also important. We know that. In Canada, five major retailers control nearly 75% of Canada's grocery market. Our national food security strategy will allow us to help independent grocers buy and transport products at competitive prices without relying on the big grocery chains. We need to make it easier for independent grocers to access supply chains through various programs, increase competition in the sector and improve grocery prices for consumers.

Thanks to the national strategy, we will also be providing nearly $130 million to the Competition Bureau and the Competition Tribunal to investigate, prevent and counter anti-competitive business practices.

Rules are in place, but we must have the means to enforce them.

Finally, we need to reduce red tape. In fact, a bill has already been introduced to this end, because red tape can have an impact on production costs.

Strengthening the Canadian economy and supporting Canadians also requires strategic investment in our infrastructure. These investments must be made in partnership not only with the provinces, but also with municipalities. At the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer, and it is that taxpayer who ultimately foots the bill. When we invest alongside local governments in infrastructure projects that are essential to our communities, we help place those municipalities on a sounder financial footing. If the federal government does not contribute to major infrastructure projects, local governments may have no choice but to adjust their tax rates, and this will be reflected in our constituents' property tax bills.

That is why I think it is important for the federal government to be involved when there are plans to upgrade water and sewer systems to increase housing capacity in our communities, for example.

Last summer, I was involved in making three announcements where the federal government, the provincial government and the municipalities made joint investments in water and sewer infrastructure projects, not only because these systems were aging but also to increase housing capacity in the areas where the work is being done. If we want to grow our communities and increase our housing stock, we must ensure that we have the proper water and sewer infrastructure in place to support that growth. I am thinking about the announcement that I made last June in Campbellton, alongside the late Mayor Soucy, regarding the upgrades to infrastructure on Notre Dame Street in the Atholville area. I also made an announcement in Grand Falls about the relocation and replacement of older sanitary sewer infrastructure on Taylor Street, Park Street and O'Regan Street. In addition to supporting residential development in this area, this project will also address critical environmental challenges because the Saint John River is nearby and we could see that a manhole was on the verge of collapse. This could have led to a serious environmental incident in Grand Falls.

Through these investments, we are not only supporting the construction of more housing but also addressing an environmental imperative.

My last example is the announcement of more than $1 million that we made in Edmundston to extend water and sewer lines to service a residential project on Laboissonnière Avenue, des Mélèzes Street, and Mgr Lacroix Avenue.

These are tangible ways that we can help our communities and all citizens who benefit from these projects.

As for the cost of living, we know that the price of electricity is also a major concern for Canadians. We know that the heating method used can have a significant impact on electricity bills. That is why we recently announced the launch of the national heat pump rebate program to help up to 820,000 households across the country switch to more efficient electric heat pumps. Our goal is to increase the number of homes that are more energy efficient in order to reduce electricity consumption and save people money every month. Heat pump systems have several advantages over traditional heating systems. They are more energy efficient, lowering energy costs for consumers. They also combine heating and cooling within the same system for year-round comfort, in the summer with air conditioning and in the winter with heating. What is more, it helps us meet our greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Under this program, households with below-median incomes will get up to $10,000, and other households will get up to $2,000. This is another concrete measure put in place to help people cope with the cost of living and also to meet our environmental objectives.

As for the cost of living, I think it is also important to mention our affordable child care program, which we launched in 2021. The results speak for themselves. The statistics show that the labour force participation rate of young parents, particularly young mothers, has increased since this program was launched. Child care spaces have been created and made available to families in multiple communities across Canada, and we continue to work with provinces and territories to strengthen the early learning and child care system across Canada for the long term.

Huge progress has been made over the past five years, but we know that the needs are great and that there is still a need for more affordable child care in our communities. There are still waiting lists. There is more work to be done, but when we look at the progress made over the past five years in expanding access to affordable child care in Canada, we see that great strides have been made. In fact, last June, an announcement of up to $5.4 billion over two years was announced. This is in addition to the more than $58 billion in funding that has already been allocated to this program since 2021 under the current extension agreements with the provinces and territories. This is another example of a concrete investment that has an impact on the cost of living, on Canadian families and on their ability to fully participate in the labour market.

I will conclude by saying that addressing the cost of living and strengthening the Canadian economy so that it works for everyone requires concrete measures and action, not just empty rhetoric. The official opposition's rhetoric is always followed by votes against every measure we put in place.

On this side of the aisle, we take the issues seriously, take action, and implement concrete measures.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, public debt charges are the fastest-growing major expense and have already surpassed Canada health transfer payments. That means Canadians are paying more to service debt than they receive for health care.

Can my hon. colleague think of a few ways the Liberal government could improve the amount of debt? Could it cut back on its spending so that Canadians can live more affordably?

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

Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House, we are managing our fiscal situation meticulously. We have undertaken a review of government spending across the various departments. We are ensuring that public finances are managed effectively. The goal is to have sufficient fiscal flexibility to be able to meet the needs of Canadians. When we implement various measures to strengthen and stimulate the Canadian economy, the idea is to have a thriving economy that allows us to fund the various social services that help Canadians cope with the cost of living.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague defends French and culture, and we all agree that debt servicing costs are huge. In this context, we find it hard to understand why the government is forgoing considerable revenue by eliminating, for example, the digital services tax on American tech giants, which are a threat to our culture and our media. Furthermore, the government refused to allow the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to collect levies from these same tech giants, which would have brought in considerable revenue for culture. Instead, it dipped into people's taxes to try to compensate for the cancellation of the levies.

What does my colleague say to that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my colleague alluded to the official languages in the preamble to his question. It gives me an opportunity to remind the House of the Liberal government's historic investment in the official languages. The action plan for official languages 2023-2028 invests $4.1 billion in supporting the official languages and the vitality of francophone minority communities. Even taking inflation into account, this is the largest investment in the official languages in the history of Canada.

It lets us support French-language education in our communities, take measures to support health, access to justice and employment services, and document our realities better through Statistics Canada data. In all, over a dozen federal organizations are involved in implementing the action plan for official languages, which is generating tangible benefits across Canada. I know what I am talking about, because I represent Madawaska—Restigouche, one of the ridings with the highest concentrations of francophones outside Quebec. These investments in the official languages are vital to my region.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent speech.

One of the issues in my riding has been children coming to school without having breakfast or something to eat. I know the government has been doing some work on this.

I am wondering if the member would be able to explain more about how we have been helping families through food at school.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share my colleague's concern. No child should ever have to spend a day in the classroom with an empty stomach. It is not conducive to learning.

As a government, we have taken this issue seriously. We established Canada's national school food program, and given the program's success and importance, we made it permanent. For example, in my province of New Brunswick, this translates into an agreement valued at $11.3 million over three years. This investment is making the free breakfast program available in all schools across the province of New Brunswick. In addition, the government is supporting the launch of a pay-what-you-can lunch program administered by our provincial partners. This is a good example of a concrete measure that allows us to support children and families, while helping to create a healthy learning environment that meets their needs.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, as always, to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents in Kings—Hants, but also in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, to take part in the debate on the Conservative opposition day motion moved today concerning Canada's fiscal situation.

I would like to raise a few important points for the benefit of Canadians who may be watching at home today and following the debates in the House of Commons in order to better understand the overall situation. In my view and in the government's view, the wording of the motion moved today by the Conservatives is problematic because it fails to take some crucial context into account, including Canada's fiscal position in general.

I am going to start by going to the first point in the text of the motion. The Conservatives assert that “the cost of government is driving up the cost of living.” I would reject the premise of that. The text of the motion fails to take into consideration the fact that the government has a comprehensive expenditure review, and the government will be reducing government expenditures by $80 billion over the next five years. Part of that includes downsizing the number of staff of the Government of Canada, the federal government, and targets have already been met in that domain.

The motion fails to recognize that global events are having an impact on the cost of living for all countries, not just Canada. There is a blockade at the Strait of Hormuz, which is impacting global energy prices, and that is being felt globally. That is, of course, being felt by Canadians because it is a domestic challenge we are facing, but it is being felt by countries around the world. There is also a war in eastern Europe, in Ukraine, and while we have been a steadfast ally in supporting Ukraine, the implications on food security and energy security are felt globally.

We are in a global trading environment, but our government has focused on controlling what we can here at home. The Conservative text of the motion today fails to understand the work that the government is doing to reduce operational costs. The text of the motion does not take into consideration the government's promise to balance the operating spending of the government by fiscal year 2028-29. That is important.

I am a proud Nova Scotian. I get to see the work of rebuilding the Royal Canadian Navy in Halifax, in my home province, where we are making generational investments that started under a previous government but have continued. We have also reinvested in the River-class destroyer. Those are long-term investments that I hope all members of this House understand are important for protecting our sovereignty and providing for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Our goal as a government is to make sure that the expenditures the government takes on are part of the long-term industrial capacity and long-term economic growth of the country, and that we have a true balance in the types of operational spending the government is going to be taking on. The Conservatives ran on a platform in the last election that included approximately $130 billion of new spending. My hon. colleagues across the way can appreciate that it feels somewhat facetious to raise this type of measure when the platform promises of the Conservatives, had they been in government, would have led them to spend $130 billion above and beyond expenditures at the time. That is an important piece.

Let us talk about Canada's fiscal position. Governments are different from household finances, but let us think about the average Canadian. My wife and I, when we were able to buy a home, did not have the money to outright buy a home. We had to get a mortgage from a bank. We had to take on debt to build a future, raise a family and live in our community. Governments are no different. Governments have to look at the borrowing costs of making longer-term investments versus the sustainability of taking on the debt obligation to drive longer-term outcomes.

Nowhere in the Conservative motion today does it highlight that Canada has the best fiscal position and net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. Canadians need to understand that Canada's overall debt, as a relative size, is proportionate to the economy. We are four times the factor in the better than Germany. On the net debt-to-GDP ratio, our fiscal position is nine times better than the United States's. We also have the second-lowest deficit in the G7.

This is at a time when the government is cutting in certain areas and making tough choices, while at the same time making massive investments in energy, critical minerals, defence and the things that we believe are important long-term for the Canadian economy and our sovereignty. Nowhere in the opposition day motion does it highlight that to Canadians. It is the prerogative of His Majesty's loyal opposition to choose how these texts are developed, but nowhere does it recognize that that is the case.

The one area where I would agree with the Conservative position is that we have to remain vigilant. Bond rate increases are happening around the world. If we look at what is happening in France right now, its government bond yields are continuing to go up, which means the cost for the government to borrow is going higher and higher. That is now starting to be priced into the market. Our Prime Minister and this government understand that we need to maintain Canada's fiscal position. That is exactly what we are doing in the face of global market uncertainty, particularly around financing.

Today's motion is also about affordability. The wording of the motion moved by the Conservatives links government spending with affordability and the cost of living in general.

It is unfortunate that the Conservatives fail to mention the affordability measures that our government has introduced. For example, the national child care program is a concrete measure that is intended to help educate our young people, but it is also intended to make life more affordable for parents. We are working with the provinces and territories.

As my hon. colleague from Cumberland—Colchester mentioned earlier, there are school programs in place across the country. Through Canada's national school food program, we are ensuring that 400,000 students across the country have the opportunity to eat breakfast or lunch made with food from local farms.

There is also the Canada child benefit. In my riding, that benefit offers families nearly $17 million to help them provide for their children. The amount is calculated based on household income.

Those are concrete measures that the government gas put forward.

I also mentioned the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. That is why the government proposed eliminating the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel. This is important. This measure is not there to guarantee that everything goes smoothly, but the government is using this concrete measure to give farmers, businesses and the general public a helping hand.

I really look forward to the debate. I did not have the opportunity to be on my feet this morning. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues about how the Conservative position seems to not reconcile the fact that Canada is in a strong fiscal position. I have no problem with His Majesty's loyal opposition highlighting that the government needs to remain diligent and needs to be thoughtful about its approach in the days ahead, but the text of the motion was presented to the House today without presenting any of the key statistics that actually outline Canada's fiscal position. It is difficult, certainly, for a government, and, I would say, many members of Parliament, to be able to vote without those key statistics that provide Canadians a better overall picture of where we are at.

The ability to talk about the fact that the debt servicing costs of governments across the world are rising because of bond rates and that governments need to be fiscally responsible and thoughtful, balancing operations and balancing budgets, while at the same time making long-term investments, is all fair game, but that level of nuance is something that I have rarely seen from the Conservative Party in my seven years, even though I have great friends across the way and there are some thoughtful colleagues, for sure. I would like to see the party in general try to find the types of texts that we could vote on and that, I think, are a little bit more balanced in terms of how they move forward.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member said that the motion was short on text, but the motion referenced the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report, which is full of data and statistics. I bring to his attention page 3, which reads:

Public debt charges are the fastest-growing expense. They are projected to more than double from $24.5 billion in 2021‑22 to $59.3 billion in 2026‑27.

I will let him reflect on that and maybe check through the report for some of the other data there. He spoke about households and talked about buying a house and getting a mortgage. I was in the mortgage business for 22 years. The government's household analogy would be more like buying a house and then going back to the bank every year to refinance the house and borrow continually against the house. Sooner or later one hits a wall. Sooner or later the debt becomes unsustainable.

Is he concerned about the Parliamentary Budget Officer's warnings about sustainability?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the household analogy, what that member fails to recognize is that if he is concerned about the overall debt as a proportion of the size of our house, he should take a look across the street and in the neighbourhood and realize that, actually, we are in one of the best positions. That does not mean that we still do not have work to do, but nowhere in his public commentary that I have heard in the House today does he recognize that Canada actually has the strongest fiscal position within the G7.

If he would like to highlight that we should take that barometer out wider and look at the G20 or other comparable countries, I think that is a fair question to raise, but when he talks about debt servicing charges going from $24 billion to over $50 billion, what he is failing to recognize is that the size of the economy also grew at the same time. When we deal in nominal numbers, it can feel like a very big number to the average Canadian. Again, I am not trying to shed the responsibility. The government has to be careful and thoughtful on this question.

In the context of his framing, he does not highlight the fact that the overall economy has grown to such a size that Canada's fiscal position remains sustainable.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservative opposition day motion is not one I could vote for, but I do sense a reason for asking the Prime Minister to come up for a committee.

It is very hard to have the level of response and accountability from the current Prime Minister that we got from Justin Trudeau. Prime Minister Trudeau tried to create a tradition of Wednesday questions, where he would answer every question that came up through a Wednesday question period. I think he was trying to create a tradition that maybe the next the Prime Minister would continue.

Does the hon. member for Kings—Hants think there is a way that is less confrontational and partisan than what we have before us today to encourage the Prime Minister to be more available and accountable to other members of Parliament?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I actually did not have the chance in my remarks to address that particular point. I mean, it has not happened often that a sitting Prime Minister is going to sit in front of a parliamentary committee. My hon. learned colleague knows that that is quite rare in circumstance.

We have a very talented team of government ministers, including the Minister of Finance. Obviously the Prime Minister is the one who is ultimately responsible as the first amongst equals within the cabinet. At the same time, we have a competent bench that can respond to these questions. The hon. member has time every single day the House of Commons sits to ask these questions of the government.

I would differ as to whether or not it is the Prime Minister that has to be before a committee. Hopefully, today, that hon. member will get a chance to ask some of these questions to the Minister of Finance when she has her turn in this place during question period. That is accountability every single day that we look forward to.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the same vein, Bill C-5 and Bill C-39 are concentrating power in the PMO, which can declare that an oil project is in the national interest and which makes all the decisions.

It seems like the Minister of Finance is merely a mouthpiece for the Prime Minister. That is why people would like to speak with him directly in committee.

What does my colleague think of that?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, again, the ministers responsible for Bill C-5 or Bill C-39 are the Minister of Transport and the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, Intergovernmental Affairs and One Canadian Economy. They are fully capable of responding to the Bloc Québécois and other members of Parliament.

We believe we have a system of accountability both here in the House of Commons and outside it, with the media and with our constituents when we go door to door. We have a system of accountability here in Canada.