Debates of Oct. 27th, 2026

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

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is that there is one pool of money in the world but a whole bunch of people dipping into it. As I pointed out, in Canada we have federal government debt, we have provincial government debt, we have consumer debt and we have corporate debt. All of these are in the same debt pool, so when there is a risk, it all goes up. When it all goes up, inflation happens. Inflation is going to happen as far as the expenses go on interest, but when the government excessively spends and runs huge deficits, it causes massive inflation in the economy, asset inflation in particular.

One of the reasons we have what is called a K-shaped economy in Canada right now is that people who have assets have seen those assets inflate. People without those assets have gone without, so those people are waiting in line for a home that is going to take far longer to build. They cannot enter the housing market for a much longer period of time, into their mid-thirties and forties now, when it used to be in their mid-twenties and early thirties. This is a problem. This is the cause of inflation. This is a result of governments spending too much and thinking that somebody down the road will pay the bill. That is not going to happen.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to go back to the issue of the ability to invest. If we are investing in projects that will generate wonderful revenues into the future for government, is that not a wise thing? I think of LNG two. Yes, there is a cost to the federal government, but in the long run, there will also be phenomenal financial resources coming, with a return to the federal government.

Would the member not agree that investing can mean many different forms of returns for Ottawa? That could be anything, including income tax and beyond. I would like his comments on the value of investing.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that opens up a good avenue for me to talk about. LNG Canada should not require any government investment. Quite frankly, LNG one did not require any government investment. LNG two should not require any government investment.

What the Government of Canada is doing right now, under the Liberal Prime Minister, is effectively replacing private sector investment with government investment. It is inflated. It is not getting anything done particularly well, as far as what they call investment goes, if there is no test to it. Frankly, it is displacing the investment that should be happening in our economy rather than adding to it. It has to stop. We have to get the private sector back on track.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on behalf of the wonderful people in the great riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Canadians have been told for years that Ottawa needs to spend more to make their lives better, yet every time Conservatives in the House raise the affordability crisis, we are met with the same response from the Liberal government: another list of programs, another spending announcement and billions more dollars in borrowed money. Why is the measure of success for the Liberal government always how much money it spends, not tonnes produced, businesses opened or even jobs created?

We constantly hear from the Prime Minister and the Liberals that they are not spending but are investing. We have been hearing this for almost 11 years at this point, and I think it is time we ask a very fair question. For most Canadians, for Canadians watching at home, is their life any better today? Despite all the announcements, all the billions of dollars in allocated funds, has their life marginally improved at all?

Canadians are struggling to afford groceries. I hear from young people all the time in my riding and across this country who say they have almost given up on the dream of home ownership. They find it increasingly expensive. There is a report out of the Bank of Canada on the brain drain that is happening here. Young people are moving to different jurisdictions such as the United States in order to find employment due to cost of living constraints.

Just last week, Food Banks Canada reported 2.35 million food bank visits in a single month, an increase of 117% since 2019. The CEO of Food Banks Canada says this is:

the story of what happens when millions of people are running out of options. In the past, most people in Canada could absorb a small financial setback... Those days are over. Canada's bleak new reality is that millions of people are making impossible trade-offs every day as they choose between food or rent.

A statement such as that should alarm every single member of the chamber.

Taking all this into account, it is hard to even fathom that the Prime Minister had the audacity to stand up in this place and say, “Affordability is the best it has been in...a decade.” These are not me putting words in his mouth; those were his words. However, I would not blame him. After all, he is only the Prime Minister of Canada, and as a matter of fact, colleagues, he just got here.

Well, he has been Prime Minister for almost two years at this point, and at some point he has to take responsibility for the country he is governing. We are beginning to see a very familiar pattern with the Prime Minister: He tells Canadians one thing, but his record demonstrates something that is very different. His promise to get federal spending under control is one example. How often have we heard the Prime Minister state boldly that the Liberals are going to spend less and invest more? I know he just got here, but surely a year and a half is enough time to explain how he intends to keep that promise he made to Canadians.

Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released her latest assessment of the government's finances, and the numbers raised some serious questions. Allow me to list just a few of the PBO's findings. This is sourced from a CTV news article:

The PBO released her latest economic forecast on Tuesday, which is projecting slower growth in the country’s real GDP forecast... The outlook also spells trouble for the federal government’s debt, and the cost of servicing that debt, projecting a growing debt-to-GDP ratio in the coming years.

Declining deficit-to-GDP ratio is one of the federal government’s [own] fiscal anchors. But, according to [the] PBO..., the charges to service the debt is “the fastest-growing piece of government spending right now.”

When the Prime Minister tells Canadians his government is going to spend less, I think they are entitled to ask exactly what he means by this. There is simply no factual evidence to support that he is spending less, as he claimed time and time again that he would. In fact, he is spending so much more. It is not just the size of the deficit that should concern Canadians. It is all those years of borrowing and what exactly that is now costing us.

Five years ago, Ottawa spent $24.5 billion servicing the national debt. This year, that bill is projected to rise to $59.3 billion. In four years from now, that is going to climb to a whopping $83 billion. That is 13.6¢ for every dollar of federal revenue. It is a number so big that the human brain can barely even conceptualize what that is or just how massive it is.

At a time when Canadians are struggling to access health care, the government is now projected to spend more on debt-servicing interest than it transfers to provinces and territories through the Canada health transfer. I ask the House and Canadians watching at home, what does that money actually provide? I will say what it does not do. It certainly does not shorten the wait times Canadians are facing to see their doctor. For a family of four, this year's federal interest bill will cost each family $6,000. Canadians are being asked to live within their means by a government that has yet to explain exactly how it is going to live within its means.

Next Thursday, the finance minister is going to come to the House, stand here and deliver yet another federal budget. I think we should all take note, and Canadians watching at home should certainly be well aware, of the timing of the introduction of that budget, which is the Thursday before the break week, to limit accountability and scrutiny of the budget, which will raise some serious questions about what we will find in that budget when we get to dig into it.

I would love to be proven wrong on all this, but judging by all the metrics, including what the PBO said recently, all roads lead to Canadians' having a very good reason to be concerned about what is in the fiscal budget this year. The Liberal government's answer to nearly every problem seems to be to spend more money. Where does that money come from? It certainly does not grow on trees. It certainly does not come from Santa Claus. It comes directly from Canadians, either through taxes they pay today or through the borrowing that taxpayers will have to service for years down the road. The government continues to mortgage the future of my kids and the kids of every single Canadian watching at home today.

There is something else in the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report that Canadians should hear before the budget is released. Excluding new announcements, total revenues are $9.2 billion higher, on average, over the next five years. Much of that comes from higher prices, particularly for oil and other commodities, which have boosted the federal tax revenue. In fact, the PBO has actually lowered their forecast for economic growth this year. While Canadians are dealing with higher prices and a slowing economy, Ottawa and the Liberal government are collecting more revenue than previously expected.

What happened to all that additional revenue? The government has announced new spending and tax measures, costing some $52.6 billion over the same five years. I am sure the government will tell us how important each and every single one of those measures is. If the Prime Minister's promise is to spend less and get the deficit under control, should we not at least expect some improvement in the country's finances when the additional revenues come in?

Instead, the PBO is projecting that the deficit will reach $70.2 billion next year. That is before we have even seen what the government plans to announce in next Thursday's budget. We also keep hearing that the government is going to balance the operating budget. It is the government itself that decides what constitutes operating or capital expenses, and it does so quite arbitrarily, might I add. This leaves open the possibility that the Liberals move an expense from one category into another, simply to say that they have reduced or eliminated the operating budget.

According to the PBO, spending on capital expenditures is far outpacing the deficit. This is why Canadians should be very concerned about this classification issue. Federal borrowing is expected to rise by $732 billion, while the cumulative deficit will be $333 billion over a five-year period.

For Canadians, I come back to the question I have been asking throughout my this speech: Where is the Prime Minister's plan to spend less? Canada is still running enormous deficits, debt interest is growing significantly and the Parliamentary Budget Officer now projects that the government will miss its own commitment to maintain a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. Which spending is being reduced? When will Canadians see the deficit brought under control? How does the Prime Minister intend to stop interest from consuming more money than they send to Ottawa?

This is why the Prime Minister's image as a banker seems to be collapsing and he needs to come to the finance committee to answer these very serious questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think today's official opposition underestimates the value of accountability through the different ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Stephen Harper was here for question period but never showed up at the finance committee to address budget issues. There is no change there. Every day we sit, the Conservative Party gets to ask literally dozens of questions, whatever questions they want. There are always ministers here to field those questions.

The Minister of Finance presents the budget and will be held to account for the government budget. Does the member believe that the Minister of Finance has an obligation to be the one held accountable for the finance budget?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely we would love to see the finance minister at the finance committee as well. I know he will be coming to the finance committee when the budget is introduced.

However, given the state of the fiscal position we are in, the PBO's own assessment that was released recently and the fact that the Prime Minister of this country is a trained economist who ran on his image as a banker, as somebody who understands the fiscal conditions of this country, these conditions are deteriorating rapidly. If he is the man, he is the man to answer the questions, so he should come to the finance committee, address the committee and let Canadians know exactly what is going on with this fiscal position and the government's record.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that Stephen Harper never appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance. However, Stephen Harper did not have a 27% attendance rate at House of Commons debates.

The fact remains that the Prime Minister travels all over the world. He is involved in foreign policy. He is always closely followed by Brookfield, whether in Saudi Arabia, India or at an announcement about condos in British Columbia. We even wonder whether this company might not be his economic and political right-hand man.

However, he does not come to talk to us. He could come talk to us in committee about his vision of investment, or rather his obsession with investment. He is willing to invest $150 billion in the Alto project, although there is no business case, and to destroy the 2% of farmland we have left in Quebec.

I would like to hear the member's comments on my remarks.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I would like to start by saying that the Prime Minister is probably the least accountable and least transparent prime minister I have witnessed in my lifetime. My colleague mentioned question period appearances, which are severely lacking in the chamber, but I would also say that we notice, as the Prime Minister goes around, that most of his announcements are actually made in foreign media, not here in the press galley to Canadian media. Where is the transparency? Where is the accountability? I am sure members of the media and the Canadian public would like to hear much more about the Prime Minister and his plans announced right here on Canadian soil.

With respect to big projects such as Alto's, I will say that it seems the government does not have a ceiling on these projects. It cannot demonstrate profitability, and we do not know what they are ultimately going to cost.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's speech was excellent. I would like to ask a very simple question: Could the member think of just a few ways the Liberal government could lower federal spending to get its budget under control?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have already outlined some $200 billion in spending that we could eliminate today. For instance, we could eliminate foreign aid. We could eliminate costly projects, such as the Alto project, that are just going to cost us a totally inappropriate amount of money without delivering results for Canadians. We can talk about all the consultants that the government has spent money on over time. Everywhere we look, we find misuse of funds. There are plenty of areas where we would see a place to cut spending so we could direct that money at better projects.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Scarborough Southwest.

I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the motion put forward by the leader of the official opposition. It touches on an issue that affects all of us: the state of our public finances and what they enable us to do for Canadians.

I believe there is at least one thing members on both sides of the House can agree on: The world is changing fast. It is changing unpredictably; trade tensions are on the rise, supply chains are being reshaped, and decisions made far from here are being felt in our kitchens, our factories and our small and medium-sized businesses. I see this in my riding of Bourassa every day. Families are carefully budgeting, and business owners on our main streets are wondering what tomorrow will bring. They do not expect slogans from us; they expect us to take this seriously.

Faced with such uncertainty, what does a responsible government do? Our government is focusing on what it can control. It is strengthening the economy here at home. It is diversifying its trade relationships abroad. It is making strategic investments to build a stronger, more independent and, above all, more resilient economy. All of this rests on one essential condition, and one condition alone: a solid financial position. A sound financial position is not an end in itself. It is an asset for the country and a tool for the government. It is what allows us to protect Canadians when the storm hits. It is what gives us the means to respond to shocks. Above all, it is what allows us to invest in the future rather than simply endure it.

The good news is that Canada is entering this period from a position of strength. The government is not the only one saying so; the International Monetary Fund, or IMF, agrees. It should be noted that the IMF does not engage in politics; rather, it produces calculations, figures and rather interesting performance indicators. According to its most recent projections, Canada will have the second-lowest deficit in the G7 this year as a share of its economy. That deficit will continue to decline over the coming years. It is expected to fall from 2.5% of GDP in 2026 to 2.4% in 2027, before falling to 1.7% by 2031.

Across the globe, budgetary pressures are mounting, yet Canada remains among the strongest performers in the G7. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the entire G7. Canada is one of only two G7 countries, alongside Germany, to hold a AAA credit rating from the major credit rating agencies. The AAA rating cannot be bought; it must be earned. This rating is not merely a badge of honour. It is a vote of confidence from investors around the world. This confidence has measurable value: It helps keep our borrowing costs as low as possible, and that directly protects taxpayers.

There are other assets in addition to that. Canada is the best-connected economy in the world, with free trade agreements that open the door to 1.5 billion consumers. We offer by far the most competitive tax environment in the G7 for new business investment.

We are not letting those strengths go to waste; we are putting them to work. In fact, last month, Canada hosted the first-ever Canada investment summit. We brought together some of the world's biggest investors and gave them a simple message: Come and see what Canada has to offer. The result was nearly $500 billion in new funding and investment commitments in Canada. However, attracting investors is not enough. They need a reason to want to stay, to build and grow here in Canada. That is why we announced the new productivity mega deduction.

What does a mega deduction actually mean?

It means that businesses will be able to immediately and permanently write off their eligible investments in a broad-based range of assets. The percentage of assets covered will increase from about 15% to more than 65%.

This measure would help an SME that is hesitating over whether to buy a new machine. There is an industrial area in my riding of Bourassa. If an SME wants to buy a new machine or modernize its systems, this measure is a reason to say yes to that investment. If a large company is torn between Canada and another country, this measure is a reason to choose our country, Canada. Whether small, medium or large, all our businesses benefit. Whether in Quebec, Alberta or elsewhere in the country, everyone benefits. When businesses invest in their equipment and their workers, our overall productivity improves.

Canada has a financial advantage, and we are determined to protect it, because investing in the future does not mean spending recklessly. On the contrary, budget 2025 marked a real shift in how public finances are managed, and this plan is working.

As the Prime Minister recently announced, the government is on track to balance its operating spending as early as 2027-28, a year earlier than our government had projected. We are also committed to rigorously implementing the efficiency measures set out in budget 2025.

The Minister of Finance and National Revenue will table the 2026 budget on November 5. On November 5, we will not be tabling slogans. We will not be tabling a motion. We will be tabling a budget. The logic is very simple: fewer resources devoted to the day-to-day operations of government and more resources devoted to the things that build our economic capacity for decades to come, such as infrastructure, major projects and revenue-generating assets.

Every family understands the difference between the money we spend to meet our day-to-day needs and the money we invest to build our future. A prudent family keeps a close eye on the former. A wise family never neglects the latter. That discipline is not optional. Our fiscal position is strong today, but in no way does that mean we can take it for granted.

That is why the government has adopted two clear and essential rules. First, operating expenses must be balanced with revenues. Second, the deficit must remain on a downward path relative to the size of our economy. These are two simple, measurable rules, and our government is abiding by them.

This brings me to my conclusion. Canada's fiscal strengths are real. We have one of the strongest financial positions in the G7, with the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio and a AAA credit rating. Our responsibility is twofold. The first responsibility is to preserve these strengths. The second is to use them for growth.

That means investing in infrastructure and major projects, attracting more private capital, empowering our businesses to grow, diversifying our trade so that we are less dependent on a single partner, and diligently managing our public finances. That is exactly what we are doing. As I was saying, we live in a rapidly changing world. Neither the Speaker of the House, nor I, nor the Prime Minister, nor any member of the House can control what happens outside our borders. However, we can control the choices we make, and our choice is clear. We are choosing to build on our strengths, invest in the future and build a more resilient and more prosperous economy for our children. We do not control the world, but we can control our choices.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government often says health care is a priority, yet the PBO shows that the debt servicing spending this year already exceeds the health transfers. By 2030, the debt servicing cost will hit $83 billion, while health care transfers are projected to only be $67 billion.

Will the Liberal government commit that no future budget will allow the debt charges to exceed the Canadian health transfers?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, here is what Canadians watching us need to know about interest charges: They have increased, but they have increased around the world.

Given the rise in rates that the whole world has experienced, the real question is this: Who is weathering it best? That is the real question, not whether interest charges have exceeded health transfers.

As I just said, Canada has the lowest net debt‑to‑GDP ratio in the G7 and a AAA credit rating. That rating is what keeps our borrowing costs as low as possible. In addition, our deficit is on a downward path.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bourassa, with whom I have the good fortune to serve on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

He spoke about what a responsible government does. He said we needed to diversify our alliances abroad. He said that while we do not control what happens outside our borders, we can control our choices. Now to my question. Does he think that we share common values with the Erdogan regime when it comes to democracy, respect for human rights, the rule of law and freedom of expression?

Can my colleague tell me if we share the same values as, for example, Saudi Arabia, where there is outright gender apartheid?

Does my colleague think that Mohamed bin Zayed is involved in what is happening in Sudan? He was welcomed with a huge banquet last night, but at the same time, he was condemned this morning in a press release.

Is my colleague telling me that, if the current tariff crisis had occurred in the 1980s, his government would have signed deals with South Africa, which was under the apartheid regime?

So far, that is what I see. I see a government that is setting aside its principles and values under the pretext of a trade war. Members are talking about what a responsible government does. They are rewriting history. It is Orwellian.

I would like him to answer my question.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I would like to say what a pleasure it is to sit alongside my colleague on the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs.

The first answer is very clear and simple: The Government of Canada will uphold its values, no matter which country it does business with.

Economically speaking, we are in a situation where we need to diversify our trade. Of course, without compromising our Canadian values, we have economic interests in other countries such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and throughout Europe, with which a summit will soon be held.

We are going to pursue that with the values that Canada is known for. People want to invest in Canada for its values, its economic strength and the opportunities we give to our investors.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague and friend from Bourassa mentioned Canada's fiscal position relative to other G7 countries.

Can he explain why those facts are so important for our economy and our country?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to answer the question, I will just talk about the mega deduction, although there is also an opportunity to attract investors. For example, I had an opportunity to host a round table in Bourassa's industrial area. Industrialists and businesses want to invest, and the mega deduction will help them upgrade their fleets and machinery. That will create jobs. It is good both for employment in our ridings and for our industries.

To repeat what I said earlier, this is about our ability to attract investment, as we did at the first-ever summit. I think the future will be a lot more promising because we can attract a lot more investment, because of our potential and, as I said in the previous answer, because of our values.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, on Wednesday, October 28, 2026, following Private Members' Business, the House shall continue to sit until midnight for the sole purpose of debating Bill C-34, An Act to enact the Digital Safety Act and the Digital Safety Commission of Canada Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, provided that, during the proceedings on the said bill, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair, except for a unanimous consent motion to see the clock.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary’s moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

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

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the constituents and residents of Simcoe North to talk about some important issues facing the economy and the importance of promises.

What is a promise if one has no intention of keeping their word? When a politician makes a promise, some people immediately think the politician has no intention of keeping their word. I think many politicians make promises they intend to keep. Should we not hold politicians accountable for the promises they make to Canadians, and for promises on subjects that go directly to the underlying credibility of the politician? What do I mean?

The Prime Minister was elected, I think in part, on a record or a résumé that many Canadians felt was credible, especially in the areas of budgetary economics or fiscal discipline. The Prime Minister introduced a new fiscal anchor, which is really a fancy term for a fiscal target. It has only been one year since that target has been in place, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer recently indicated that the Prime Minister will blow through his own self-imposed fiscal target. I mean, this is barely a year since that target has been in place, and the Prime Minister has chosen, and I say “chosen” because it is a deliberate choice, to blow through the anchor. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also indicates that revenues are up and that if the government had not increased its spending, it could have met its own fiscal anchor or fiscal target.

This is a deliberate choice by the Prime Minister to break a promise that he made to Canadians less than one year ago. Paul Martin, when he was finance minister, met every single deficit reduction target that was imposed. He met every single fiscal anchor that was imposed. There has not been a Liberal finance minister in 10 years who has met their own self-imposed fiscal targets. At the very first opportunity that the new Prime Minister and the new finance minister had to keep their fiscal promise to Canadians, they chose to break it.

How is it possible that the fiscal genius who is the Prime Minister, as some people will say, is breaking a fiscal promise? He is supposed to be the one who was fiscally restrained and cared about the finances of the nation, yet he is showing himself to be about as reliable, or perhaps I should say as unreliable, as Prime Minister Trudeau in this department. This is an example of the Prime Minister undermining his own credibility on the fiscal finances of the nation by choice, less than a year after he made the promise.

David Dodge, in 2023, wrote, “We have argued in the past that an interest cost/revenue ratio above 10% and a federal debt/GDP ratio that is not declining steadily from close to...where it currently stands signal risks of unsustainability.” He is talking about unsustainability of fiscal finances.

I had a chance to ask Mr. Dodge, former central bank governor, about this point, and he responded:

If you're spending 10¢ out of every tax dollar that you collect on servicing past debts, that obviously leaves you with less to spend on providing current goods and services.

The problem that we collectively face now and going forward is that we're going to have growth of the economy or growth of the base revenues of government that will be equal to or perhaps even less than the interest rates. The burden of past debt will increase year after year rather than being eroded.

That was in 2023. At that point in time, we were just about to approach spending 10¢ of every dollar of government revenue on interest on the debt. In just a few years, the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects, Canada will spend nearly 14¢ of every dollar it receives on interest on the debt. In fact, interest on the debt is the fastest-growing expense line item in the budget. It is growing faster than health care spending increases and faster than any other expenditure.

I am asking myself how it is possible that the Prime Minister, who was elected in part because of his financial credentials, who is a two-time central banker, who is a very well-known economist, who was chair of the Financial Stability Board, who was a Goldman Sachs banker, who, to many people's applauding, was successful as chair of Brookfield and who has fiscal credentials, is making a deliberate choice to break a promise he made to Canadians.

He did not just make the promise to Canada in general. He made a promise to our young people that they would be able to inherit a government and fiscal finances that were not going to be eroded. He said he would spend less to invest more, yet we find out that the government is going to spend nearly 14¢ of every dollar paying interest on the debt. Those obligations will be passed to future generations, and they will have no choice but to meet those obligations. This means less money for social programs, less money to spend on the things Canadians want and a heck of a lot less money to provide significant tax relief to Canadians.

In the face of all of this, the Prime Minister's fiscal plan is actually to borrow record amounts of money in the bond markets. Next year, we will have to borrow almost $600 billion. The year after that, it will be $563 billion, and that is before the new borrowing we are going to see in the budget next week. The government believed interest rates were going to go down last year and into this year, but they have gone up. What is going to happen to debt service costs then?

This is why the deficit target is even worse this year than it was last year. The deficit is at least $3 billion a year higher this year and every year going out. If there is continued trouble, or shocks in the bond markets, our debt service costs are going to increase substantially, and that 14¢ might become 15¢ or 16¢. Members might think I am making something up, but in the late 1970s, debt service costs were, I think, around 15¢. They then went up to 30¢. In fact, I think they peaked at 36¢. We are going in the wrong direction.

This was a primary promise the Prime Minister made to the House, to Canadians and to the next generation, and he is breaking that promise. He should feel the need to answer not just to the House but to all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, where I fully agree with the member is on the Prime Minister's credentials. The Prime Minister has put Canada in a great financial position to look at ways we can invest in Canada and Canadians. In the long term, we will see additional revenues coming in to the federal government. This is part of investing. This is something that is direct. There are many indirect ways in which investing helps.

When we listen to the Conservatives, they seem to oppose investing in Canadians to build a stronger, healthier economy. A good example of that is how I was criticized because I made reference to LNG phase two. The Conservatives said the government did not need to invest in that, that it would have happened without the province and the federal government.

Does the member believe in government support and investment?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was unaware that the member was such a proponent of supply-side economics.

The truth is that the fiscal position of this country is being eroded. It is not getting better under the Prime Minister, even though he made that commitment to Canadians, when we are going to spend nearly 14¢ out of every tax dollar brought in on interest on the debt. Interest on the debt is the fastest-growing expense of the government. We used to spend only 10¢ on the dollar, and before Prime Minister Trudeau came in, we spent only about 7.5¢ of every dollar on interest on the debt.

This is going in the wrong direction, and I am quite shocked. I am surprised that the two-time central banker and much-lauded Goldman Sachs wunderkind has put Canada's fiscal health at risk by borrowing record amounts of money year after year and continuing to stay on this course.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Simcoe North, for his excellent speech. He is a member who brings a great deal of substance to parliamentary debate.

I would like to discuss the form of the motion, because the motion simply calls for the Prime Minister to be invited to appear as a witness before the Standing Committee on Finance. He does not even have to accept. I think that is necessary. The Minister of Finance appeared before the committee recently. He was unable to answer questions or understand how the tax system works. He showed up with an infographic featuring coloured bubbles that looked like something a seven-year-old would draw for Halloween.

Earlier, the member for Bourassa told us that, as the government, they do not move motions. They are above that. They bring down budgets. They are the ones doing the real work. We supported his private member's bill, incidentally. He seems to have forgotten that. I get the impression that all of this shows a kind of neglect or contempt for parliamentary work. The Liberals will probably vote against the motion.

What do they stand to gain by voting against the motion? We want to invite the Prime Minister to come answer questions. He can even decline the invitation.

Why would they vote against that?

[Adam Chambers, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have shared many good conversations about economics with my colleague. I find him to be incredibly smart, and his question is quite correct.

The Prime Minister does not need to show up to question period every day, and he does not, which is maybe why we are asking that he might show up to a committee to answer some questions about this.

While I have a lot of respect for the finance minister, and I hold him in very high regard as a parliamentarian, this fiscal promise to Canadians was not the finance minister's promise. This was the Prime Minister's promise. It is the Prime Minister's choice to blow through the fiscal anchor. It is the Prime Minister's choice to put our debt on a bad track. Frankly, the Prime Minister should want to answer questions.