Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, a year ago this week, the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences released a report commissioned by the Liberal government that identified significant gaps in diagnosis, coordination and access to supports for Canadians with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, or FASD. Since then, virtually nothing has been done to address the critical issues raised by the experts. Why pay for this report in the first place if the government did not intend to use the findings?

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the hon. member, in response to a question from our side, very clearly distance himself from the 10 years of government that he was a part of. Here are some facts on those 10 years. Since 2015, human trafficking has increased by 84%, sexual assaults increased by 76% and violent crime increased by 55%. I wonder if the hon. member might want to take this opportunity to express his regret for the role he played in passing laws that led to those horrific results.

Mr. Speaker, there was another speech made today, probably a little more watched than this one, from our leader, in Calgary, talking about national unity. When I look at the financial situation facing Canada today, one of the things I cannot help but think about is how different things would be had pipelines, which were already under way in 2015, been built to completion. Right now, we are in a circumstance where our country is bringing in billions of dollars' worth of oil from countries like Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria, to the east coast, and the regulations at play are not nearly as rigorous for that oil as they are for oil coming from Alberta and Saskatchewan. I am wondering if the hon. minister thinks that is fair and if he has some thoughts on the impact that has on the Canadian economy.

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, the last year of the Harper government, Canada's national debt was $616 million. Today, under the Liberals, it is an astonishing $1.4 trillion, and Canada is the only G20 country in recession. In 2015, Canada had a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world. Today, we spend more on federal debt interest than we do on the Canada health transfer, and we are now forced to subsidize groceries for a full third of the population. While Liberals debate terminology to describe the economic crisis, today's consequences are the result of a decade of deliberate Liberal choices, such as the choice to take on mountains of debt early on; the choice to use the cover of a global pandemic to undertake a massive, permanent expansion in inflationary spending; and the choice to kill private sector oil and gas projects that would have provided immense economic and security benefits to Canadians today. JFK once famously said, “Things do not happen. Things are made to happen.” It is time someone in the Liberal government took some responsibility for the economic disaster it has made to happen here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that would help Canada's fiscal situation substantially and would help our national unity situation substantially is if we were allowed to sell our resources from Alberta around the world. Currently, because of policies put in place by this member's government over the last 10 years, oil shipped from Alberta is subject to more rigorous emission standards than oil imported from Saudi Arabia and Nigeria to Canada. Does the member think it is okay that oil coming from Nigeria, Saudi Arabia or Algeria is subject to less rigorous standards than oil and gas coming from Alberta?

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, The New York Times reported that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. In 2015, we had a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world. Fast-forward to today. We have more than doubled our national debt. The Liberals brag about the fact that we are subsidizing groceries for a third of the population. That is the situation we are in. We are spending more on interest than we are on the Canada health transfer, and the Liberals' own financial statements indicate that by 2030‑31, the entire deficit would be used to pay interest on the debt. How did we get here?

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to the hon. parliamentary secretary's speech. At one point she did ask what we would cut. Let me be very clear, because she also referenced my home province of Alberta in kind of a flippant way. The first things we would cut would be Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which have made it impossible to compete in the global environment where, believe it or not, oil coming to Canada from Algeria, Nigeria and Saudi Arabia faces fewer restrictions and less rigorous regulation around reporting than oil coming from Alberta being sold in our own country. Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 are where we would start cutting.

I know the member is heckling me, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to talk about something fairly serious to me. She made the assertion that Conservatives do not care about the most vulnerable. The member is new to the House and is mocking me as she smiles. The member might not know that I have a son with autism. He is 30 years old. I talk about this a lot in the House. In 1995, when we were in a similar situation to what we are in now and we had a Liberal government dealing with a generation after the 14 out of 15 deficits that the former Trudeau government had run, that Liberal government, under Paul Martin, was forced to cut 32% from transfers for health, social services and education. Every province in the country and every vulnerable Canadian in the country had to pay the consequences of those devastating cuts. Those devastating cuts happened for exactly the same reason, because of the exact same type of fiscal policy that the current Liberal government is running. We have massive deficits, a situation I mentioned a few minutes ago in which we are paying more on interest today than we are on the Canadian health transfer. Because of deliberate spending decisions made by the member's government, today we are spending more on interest than we are on the Canadian health transfer. The Liberals' own budget documents presented in the spring economic statement indicate that by 2030, we are going to be using the entire deficit to pay off interest on the debt. It is the equivalent of going to a bank, getting a mortgage and convincing the bank to allow payment of only the interest on that mortgage, not paying off any of the principal but only making interest payments on the mortgage. That is the situation we are in today. Another Liberal member just called that the best fiscal situation in the world. That is laughable. There is no Canadian who believes that right now. I have a quote from C.S. Lewis. This goes back a while, but I find it a perfect quote for where we are right now. Lewis said: We all want progress. But progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turning, then to go forward does not get you any nearer. If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the [one] who turns back soonest is the most progressive.... We need to turn back. We need to get this country's fiscal situation back on track. We need to have a plan, at least someone on the government side who indicates that it is important to one day get back to a balanced budget and a time when we have the flexibility to make the best decisions we can for all Canadians, including the most vulnerable.

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, Canada had a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world. Coming out of a global economic meltdown, Canada's federal debt stood at $616 billion. Yesterday, we found out that after a decade of Liberal economic experiments funded on the national credit card, our debt this fiscal year will hit $1.4 trillion. The Liberals are trading away Canadians' future prosperity to fund this tiresome daily Liberal QP routine of riffing off ever-increasing lists of things they are charging to the national credit card. Is there someone over there with the courage to stand up and say, “enough is enough”?

Mr. Speaker, in a mythical Liberal world, budgets balance themselves. In the current Prime Minister's theoretical world, the national credit card has no limit and the bill never comes due, but we live in the real world, where the Liberal government's addiction to borrowing has real consequences. This Prime Minister is now spending more on interest than on the Canada health transfer. According to his own economic update, and this is quite astonishing, in 2030, the entire deficit would go to paying interest on debt that the Liberals have added since being elected. In this new world, Liberal debt becomes self-generating. When will this experiment end?

Mr. Speaker, April is World Autism Month, and it has now been 28 years since my son Jaden was diagnosed. Today Jaden is 30 and an enthusiastic extrovert, but back then he seemed almost completely stuck in his own world. Our instinct at the time was to try to help him by pulling him into our world, and it did help. I have since gravitated to a slightly different approach. These days I spend more time in Jaden's world, getting down close to him, looking at what he is looking at and tuning in to what holds his attention in the moment. When I intentionally pause, put the phone away and just sit still with Jaden, I experience things I normally miss, like the sense of wonder gazing out a train window, the value of non-verbal communication or the strength of connection through physical contact: a hug, a tussle, a tickle or Jaden's famous high-five. We too often default to defining people like Jaden by the help they need, but in my experience, I have learned many of the most important things in my life from him. Jaden has helped me, I hope, to be a better person than I would have been without him, and for that, I am truly thankful.

Mr. Speaker, real leaders take ownership of their mistakes. They learn and they change. Contrast that with the daily Liberal approach in the House of blame, blame, blame. The fact is that the Prime Minister's signature election promise was to “build the strongest economy in the G7.” That exact phrase appeared, word for word, 10 times in the Liberal platform. Today we learned that Canada has the only shrinking economy in the G7. Our global competitors, faced with the same global challenges, are all doing better. Will someone take some ownership over there and admit that record Liberal spending is crushing the Canadian economy?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of misinformation, let us talk about the Liberal promises in the last election. Ten months ago, Canadians trusted the Liberal Prime Minister when he promised a budget deficit of only $62 billion. Five months ago, that number ballooned to $78 billion and, again this month, they added billions more, which is a promise clearly broken. Ten months ago, Canadians trusted the Liberal Prime Minister when he promised “to build the strongest economy in the G7.” Today, we have the weakest economy in the G7, and it is actually shrinking, another promise clearly broken. Why should Canadians believe anything anyone over there has to say now?

Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, the Liberal election platform promised that the federal deficit would be limited to an already eye-popping $62 billion. That deficit exploded to $78 billion in the fall, with billions more added since. Our federal debt is now nearly two and a half times what it was just a decade ago. Meanwhile, the Toronto Star is warning this morning that Canadian household debt has risen to a record $2.6 trillion. How have we gone, in just a decade, from a country with a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world to a country where Canadians are taking on record personal debt to pay off the bills passed down to them by their own federal government?

Mr. Speaker, under the Liberals' new leadership, Canada's multifront economic crisis has gotten objectively worse. The Liberal Prime Minister himself promised the $62-billion deficit. Their own budget shattered that promise, adding $16 billion in new debt, and they have added billions more in recent weeks. Young Canadians are taking on record personal debt to pay the bill. According to RBC, “64% of Millennials are anxious about their financial future as monthly costs squeeze budgets”. Which Liberal minister will stand now to explain to those young Canadians why they should take on more personal liability and stress to cover ever-increasing Liberal debt?

Mr. Speaker, hopefully the parliamentary secretary does a better job with this question than the last one. It is interesting that he is here again today to pad his word count. I noticed that the challenge he had just now was that he was answering questions the Liberals knew were coming from the shadow minister for health. Rather than have the parliamentary secretary for health answer the questions, as would normally be the case, I do not know why they would have this parliamentary secretary answer. I do not know why he is here to answer my questions today as well. The question I asked back in November came after the budget. At that point in time, Fitch Ratings came out raising an alarm. It said, in a release it put out, that “Canada’s...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances”. It went on to say, “persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.” At that point in time, I raised the issue of the previous long-standing Liberal government, the government that was in place from 1993 until we finally got relief in January of 2006, just over 20 years ago. Of course, that government was dealing with the impacts of another previous Trudeau government that ran 14 deficits in 15 years. A generation later, the Chrétien-Martin government had to deal with the effects of all of those deficits and the debt that had risen. By the way, the debt that had been added was so high that the subsequent Mulroney government, who the Liberals at that time liked to say ran the biggest deficits in Canadian history, deficits that were entirely interest on Trudeau debt, was forced to cut 32% from the transfers for health, social services and education. I think it was called the Canada social transfer. I raised the fact that at that point in time, those cuts were precipitated by a ratings cut. Fitch has announced that it is concerned about Canada's fiscal situation. I asked if anyone over there understood the situation. At that point, instead of the finance minister standing, the Minister of Energy stood up, and I am sure this is very reassuring for all Canadians. He said, “We are doing just fine.” That was the reassurance we got. Therefore, I asked a second question that day and walked through some quotes from the early nineties from Reuters. From February 1994, it says, “Liberal government brings down what it considers to be a tough budget.... It nonetheless still has spending rising slightly, and immediate public and market reaction is it did not go nearly far enough.” In January 1995, this was a headline: “A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal headlined 'Bankrupt Canada' calls Canada 'an honorary member of the Third World'”. I have been raising this alarm and I think Canadians should be concerned, because the government has added another $16 billion in debt since the promise made at election time, and since the budget it has added billions more in spending that is not accounted for. I am curious how we have gone, in just a decade, from a country with a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world to a country that has to borrow from our kids to subsidize groceries for an entire generation.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out that there was not even an attempt to answer my question. To put it in context, if we want to contrast, in 2008 we faced a global economic crisis, and our government at the time put in place a plan to spend money to get through the crisis, but with a plan to get back to a balanced budget by 2015, which we did. We had the richest middle class in the world, according to The New York Times at that point in time. We can contrast that with his government's approach, which faced a global crisis and has run increasing deficits. In fact, in the election campaign just 10 months ago, the Liberals promised in their platform that they would run an astounding $62-billion deficit. That deficit grew to $78 billion in the fall, and then they announced a $12-billion plan to subsidize food, groceries, for a quarter of Canadians. How in the world did we get there?

Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, Canada elected a new Conservative government led by former prime minister Stephen Harper. The Harper legacy is one of true progress. It was a government that cut virtually every tax Canadians pay. It negotiated a record number of trade deals that are more critical now than ever. It navigated a global economic meltdown guided by the world-leading Harper-Flaherty economic action plan. It introduced the Muskoka initiative, widely recognized as one of the most impactful G7-G8 initiatives of all time. It launched life-changing programs, such as the registered disability savings plan and the ready, willing and able employment program. By 2015, Canada had a balanced budget and, according to the New York Times, the richest middle class in the world. Today, that era may seem like a distant memory, but the story of our strong, principled, Conservative legacy offers Canadians hope for a better future, guided by another strong, principled, Conservative leader. We have done this before, and we can do it again.

Mr. Speaker, less than a year ago, the Liberals were elected on a platform that included an already astounding $62-billion deficit and lower food prices for Canadians. That deficit grew to $78 billion in the fall. This week, the Liberals announced $12 billion in new spending to deal with the ongoing food inflation crisis they created. This is a massive bill that will inevitably be passed on to the next generation. How have we gone, in just a decade, from a country with a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world to a country that has to borrow from our kids to subsidize groceries for a quarter of our population?

Mr. Speaker, I did not note an answer to the question there. Earlier this week, CTV's Vassy Kapelos pointed this out to the Liberal House leader: “What you announced yesterday is more than $11 billion of additional government spending, but nobody from your government has said how you will pay for it.” As he does daily in the House, the House leader completely ignored the question, twice. Now that he has had some time to think about it, will the House leader stand up and tell us where the billions of dollars will come from? Why was it not in the Liberal budget less than three months ago? What is the current budget deficit number the Liberal cabinet is now working with?

Mr. Speaker, a few days ago, we celebrated the 20th anniversary of the Stephen Harper Conservative government. After a decade of being in power, the Harper government left with a balanced budget and what The New York Times referred to as the richest middle class in the world. I would ask our hon. leader to reflect on what we did well under the Conservative government that led to those circumstances, which seem so distant now.

Madam Speaker, while members of the House may sometimes get confused when they see the two of us standing up, let us be assured we could not be further apart in terms of our views on this issue. This is probably more of a comment than a question, because I do not know where a question would even go. The comment would be that the wish list for my constituents, and probably his, would include the strongest health care in the world, the strongest education systems in the world and support for people who are vulnerable. I would argue that the oil and gas sector in Canada has created untold billions of dollars in financing toward those things. The Liberal approach over the last decade of shutting down the oil and gas sector largely has not benefited the environment in any way. I do not think there has been any benefit to the environment, but I do think it has benefited the economies of Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other oil-producing countries at the expense of our own systems and our own ability to fund important health care, social service and education services in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, today being a late show, I get a chance to follow up on a couple of questions I asked on November 3. Going back to that time, I asked questions, interestingly, about bonuses being paid to executives. Of course, the responses to those questions had nothing to do with the questions I asked at the time, so we expect we will get a chance to hear some of those answers today in the response from the parliamentary secretary. In the questions, we talked about how every single dollar the Liberal government brags about spending comes from the pockets of hard-working Canadians in the form of higher taxes and inflation. While Canadians are lining up at food banks in record numbers, their own money is being used by the Liberal government to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. I raised the alarm that, for example, 100% of Via Rail executives received bonuses averaging $110,000 on top of their regular pay under the government, and I talked about that being incomprehensible and completely irresponsible. At the time, the Liberals were doing everything they could to force an election that nobody in Canada wanted, with a budget that was completely reckless. The budget actually came out the next day. We had some hints as to what was going to be in it. The next day we found out that though the Prime Minister had promised a minuscule deficit of only $62 billion during the election campaign, instead, just a few months later, the self-proclaimed economic mastermind put forward a budget that was $78 billion in deficit. We went from $62 billion promised in the election campaign in April to $78 billion in a November budget. I raised the fact that it was incomprehensible to me that in this fiscal crisis we are in, 100% of Via Rail executives were able to get bonuses. I pointed out in my second question that in 2015, The New York Times reported that Canada had the richest middle class in the world when the Liberal government came to power. We had a balanced budget when the government came to power. After that, the finance minister who put forward the budget was elected. I raised in my second question the fact that during an epic housing crisis, 99% of CMHC executives received bonuses averaging $43,000. I asked how that was okay. We received no answers to those questions, no references at all to the level of bonuses executives were getting paid under the government. I hope after having had a month and a half to research this information, we will hear an answer now.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know the last time the hon. member was actually at committee. Somehow the member talked about taking potshots. I do not know how he defines a potshot. I pointed out that he ran in an election in which his leader promised an already devastating budget deficit of $62 billion. We are talking about record-level budget deficits. Then, a few months later, the Liberal government put forward a budget with a $78-billion budget deficit. Somehow my comment was a potshot. I also asked the member to explain how the government can justify 100% of Via Rail executives' getting bonuses. He called that a potshot, but it is a fair question in a democratic society. It is a fair question for this time. I hope the member will actually answer this question this time.

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to get up on behalf of the hard-working constituents of Leduc—Wetaskiwin to weigh in on debates, particularly debates about fiscal issues. When listening to the debate today, and ultimately after listening to the debate over the last 10 years, it seems that there is an increasing number of Liberals who are standing up to praise their own government, to pat their own government on the back, about ever-increasing, new amounts of spending. That seems to be increasing exponentially as this government gets longer in the tooth. When I say “this government”, I mean the 10-year Liberal government, because I cannot see that anything has changed since the last election. If anything, the spending is getting higher and less responsible. Watching what is happening in the House is kind of like watching a Liberal minister go to someone's house, maybe a member's house or some other Canadian voter's house. They take $1,000 from that voter and put together a little parade with a little marching band, party hats, kazoos and whatever the case might be, and then they walk next door with video cameras all fully operating to capture every moment while they hand over $800 to the neighbour. That is out of the $1,000 that they collected from the person in the first place. They give the neighbours $800 and then they broadcast this and post it on social media. The $200 goes into a pot to pay consultants and new public servants. We have added over 100,000 public servants over the last decade. The Liberals just do this again and again, and then they come to the House for question period, and when we ask them questions about this strategy of taking $1,000 and giving back $800 over and over again to people, they wag their fingers at us, as if to say, “Shame on Conservatives for wanting to take away that $800.” What the Liberals do not say is that we are advocating for them to not take the $1,000, every single time this process happens, over and over again. Of course, this adds up. It adds up to the tune of, this year, $78 billion. This year, we are seeing that our government debt now is more than twice what it was when we were in power. Back in 2015, when Conservatives were in power, we had a balanced budget. We had the richest middle class in the world. In fact, it was not us who said that. The New York Times reported that, for every person in the world who was in the 30th percentile of best off, the 40th percentile of best off or the 50th percentile of best off, of every country in the world, Canadians were the richest. Canadians were the best off, compared to every single country in the world in 2015. Then, we had a change in government. We had a balanced budget in 2015, and now we have rattled off 10 straight years of ever-increasing deficit budgets. The last Liberal member who got up to speak talked about the interest payments paid by a Conservative government in the late eighties and early nineties. What that Liberal member did not point out was that the interest was run up during 14 out of 15 straight Trudeau government deficits, or 14 deficits in 15 years under the Pierre Trudeau government. It wound up running into a situation, or not “running into” because it was not externally driven, but internally, the government wound up creating a situation where we had an energy crisis, a housing crisis, an economic crisis broadly and an interest-rate crisis. To be fair to the Mulroney government of the late eighties and early nineties, it ran a balanced budget, if we were to take interest payments out of the equation. However, the interest on the Trudeau-era debt wound up being the highest deficits in Canadian history, made up exclusively of Trudeau-era interest payments. Today, we find ourselves in a situation where we have had another decade of Liberal government and another decade of continuous deficits running up that debt. Today, we are in a situation, not unlike where we were before, where we are now paying more in interest than we are paying in the Canada health transfers. It is insane, quite frankly, that we would be paying more in interest than we are in the Canada health transfers, and that is entirely because of decisions undertaken by this Liberal government. I will point to one of those decisions, and it is very topical this week. One of those specific decisions was the decision to kill the northern gateway pipeline a decade ago. The Liberal government, when it first came in, made a decision on the northern gateway pipeline, which had been approved, and it was going through its last stages before it would be operational. That pipeline would have shipped 525,000 barrels of oil a day to Asian markets. However, the Liberal government killed that pipeline. It would have meant billions of dollars coming in annually to the Canadian government. It would have had a huge impact on the economy. Instead of that economic supercharge, which we would have had from that pipeline, the Liberals exacted crushing economic policies that had, by the way, no environmental benefit, while they doubled Canada's debt. We know who did benefit from those Liberal policies. Obviously, it was anybody who had invested in some of the environmental schemes that they had come up with. I would say the current Prime Minister definitely benefited from many of those Liberal policies. As well, the governments, or the people, of Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Venezuela benefited. Maybe it was not the people. Maybe it was the governments, elected or non-elected, depending on what country we are talking about, although in most of those cases they were not elected, that wound up getting very rich, because we decided we were not going to sell our oil. That just left the market open for them to sell more of their oil. What did Canadians get for that sacrifice, other than a mountain of Liberal debt? We have not heard from anybody in the House of Commons on that. We have not heard any Liberal mention that. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised only $62 billion in debt in Canada. It is astonishing that that phrase would be the restriction, that somehow the promise was made that we would be restricted to $62 billion in deficit. If we look back to the early Trudeau days, when there was just going to be tiny deficits, just for a couple of years. Now we are sitting here, 10 years later, and we have gone from a promise of a $62-billion deficit, and a promise that the new guy was going to be fiscally and economically responsible, and that things were going to be different, to having largely the same front bench that we had back then and, magically, somehow, we have increased the deficit from $62 billion to $78 billion, with no explanation. If we go back to those days of 2015, we had a balanced budget and the richest middle class in the world, which was under the Stephen Harper government, after coming out of a global economic meltdown. It is interesting that the Liberal member for Winnipeg is giggling over there as he is contemplating maybe how good life was for his constituents at that point in time, because they had jobs. We had the flexibility, as a government, to come to this place and really contemplate what a hopeful future would look like. We had flexibility in our budgets, and we were in control of spending. We have all of that new spending, and all of those new public servants who have been added in the government, but when we talk to any constituents, and I cannot imagine this is any different for Liberal members of Parliament than it is for Conservative members of Parliament, and ask them to name one area of their life that is better in 2025 than it was in 2015, they cannot do it. Our health care system, clearly, when we talk to anyone who has experienced the health care system, is struggling and suffering. Housing is incredibly more expensive than it was. It is way more difficult to get a house than it was. We can look at criminal justice measures, and serious violent crime has increased drastically over that time. Any Canadian, any constituent, will tell us those things. With virtually any measure that we look at, things are worse today than they were 10 years ago. They are worse today than they were one year ago, when this new Prime Minister was touting his new government and his world-leading expertise economically. This has proven not to be the case. I look forward to any Liberal member who actually wants to weigh in on this conversation asking me questions.

Madam Speaker, there is quite a bit of irony in the question, because if anybody who spends any time watching CPAC were to put a face to the words “talk, and talk, and talk”, it would be the member's face. Nobody takes up more time in the House than that particular member, talking, talking and talking. People can trust that, as the government spends billions and billions more, and takes billions and billions more from Canadian taxpayers, Conservatives will oppose that every step of the way.

Madam Speaker, I would say that the obstruction from the government is at a level we have not seen before in the House. The member and I have both been members for a long time. There are a lot of things we would not agree on, including some of the most topical issues today. However, the government has tools to move things through the House. It has all the control when it comes to moving things through the House, and it likes to do that without any debate. I do not think that either of us, and we are going to be in agreement on this, is going to allow the government, a minority government, to just pass its entire agenda through the House of Commons with no debate. That is not going to happen.

Madam Speaker, that is a great question. We would like committees to be doing the work they do. When we do see footage from committees, we see why the Liberal members are trying to shut them down. It is because ministers are having a really hard time at committee explaining what it is they are actually doing. There is another thing: The “just trust us” mentality the Liberals have was sort of the theme of the election campaign. The result of that is that we are going from a $62-billion deficit to a $78-billion deficit. That absolutely demands scrutiny from Parliament. We are not going to just trust the government; we are going to hold it to account as Canadians elected us to do.

Mr. Speaker, a decade ago, the Liberal government killed the northern gateway pipeline, which would have shipped 525,000 barrels of Canadian oil per day to Asian markets. The value of that oil would have been billions of dollars coming annually into the Canadian economy. Instead of that economic supercharge, the Liberals enacted crushing policies with no environmental benefit, while doubling Canada's debt. That Liberal political decision greatly benefited the economies of other oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Venezuela and Russia. What did Canadians get from that sacrifice other than a mountain of new Liberal debt?

Mr. Speaker, back to the actual topic, the Liberal MP for Victoria defiantly stated that he is “decisively not in support.” The Liberal member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville has said that it must have B.C.'s consent. The Liberal MP for Fleetwood—Port Kells went further, saying that any pipeline must have the consent of the Premier of British Columbia. Without support from that one Canadian, he said emphatically that “there will be no pipeline”. Will the Prime Minister stand up to his “keep it in the ground” caucus, or is his real plan simply to delay any pipeline until after the next election when he can kill it?

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty safe to say the hon. member cannot count on my support for this budget. Right now in Canada, the debt is more than the budget, so the amount of debt we owe is more than the entire budget of the federal government. Every dollar spent is a dollar borrowed from Canadians and future Canadians. According to Fitch Ratings, right after the budget was announced, “Canada's...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances”. It continued, “persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.” This has happened before, with crushing impacts on the social programs Canadians care about and benefit from. In the 1990s, after similar ratings pressure, the Liberal government of the day was forced to cut 32% from the federal health and social transfers over just two years. Is the member not concerned about the same thing happening today?

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to discuss this important motion from the member for York South—Weston—Etobicoke. I will start by commending the member. We get one shot to move a motion or a private member's bill if we are lucky to be drawn early enough to have it debated in the House. It can be tempting to put something forth that is partisan and that makes it difficult for other parties to support, but as I read this motion, I think the member used his opportunity to move something that can bring the House together. I thank him for that. There are some particular things I would like to note. As I mentioned, the language is drawn to find consensus in the House. On the language around accountability and effectiveness, I think back to what got me interested in international development in the first place, which was the Muskoka initiative back in 2010, when the Harper government of the day was hosting the G8 and had the opportunity to have a signature initiative. Stakeholders like Save the Children, UNICEF, CARE, World Vision and others came together and had the idea of tackling two particular targets that were behind: the target to save the lives of kids under five, and the target to save the lives of mothers in and around childbirth. Of course, those were things that all Canadians could support when they really understood what was going on. One thing that was hard-wired into the Muskoka initiative was the steps around accountability and transparency. On the accountability side, one thing that was hard-wired in was that when G8 countries came to Canada and made a promise on the Muskoka initiative, they were expected to keep that promise. Second to that, on the transparency piece, was working with the international community. In fact, Prime Minister Harper co-chaired a group that was focused on making sure that we knew where the money was going, that there was some transparency around where the money was being spent and that the money was being spent to accomplish the goals that it set out. I remember talking to the CEO of one of the international development organizations in Canada who said the Muskoka initiative was probably one of two G7 or G8 initiatives that had a meaningful impact. Probably the most powerful two were the Make Poverty History campaign and the Muskoka initiative. It is important with these types of initiatives, when we are talking about accountability and transparency, to focus on the outcomes. When we look at the outcomes, we can look at the two millennium development goals, or MDGs, which were set out in 2000 with a timeline to finish them by 2015: MDG 4 and MDG 5 around saving the lives of kids and saving the lives of mothers. In 2000, nine million kids were dying every year from things that nobody in North America would die from, like diarrhea, things that were completely preventable. We were way behind on our targets, but By 2015, in large part because of efforts that Canadians led, we went from nine million kids under five dying to under six million kids under five dying every year from completely preventable causes. The momentum really picked up after the Muskoka initiative. In the area of moms dying in and around childbirth, in 2000, the number of moms dying every year in and around childbirth around the world, again from completely preventable causes, was 500,000. By 2015, in large part due to the efforts of all countries, but organized through the Muskoka initiative led by Canada, we went from 500,000 moms dying every year to under 300,000 moms dying. There are over 200,000 more mothers living every single year in part because Canada marshalled support from the international community to support the Muskoka initiative. With respect to these types of impacts, I have seen the birthing kits that organizations use and that they handed out on the ground; organizations like World Vision, Plan International, Save the Children, CARE and UNICEF have been a big part of that. In those birthing kits might be something like a plastic sheet to lay on a dirt floor so a mom can give birth on the sheet instead of on a dirt floor, or an X-acto knife, a box cutter-type knife, to cut the umbilical cord. Again, it would probably take pennies to produce those, and someone would not have to chew the umbilical cord to break it when a baby is born. I am not allowed to use props, but if I were, I would hold up a little bottle like an eye drop bottle for people with contact lenses, which holds a clean saline-type solution that could be put on the end of the umbilical cord to keep a baby alive. In the absence of that, oftentimes folks in some parts of the world would put mud on the end of the umbilical cord as a way to seal it off. Members can imagine the impact that would have. Birthing kits were, for pennies, saving people's lives, women's lives and the lives of kids, and having a huge impact around the world. I do not often stand here in support of a Liberal member's motion or bill, but one of the reasons I am standing here in support of this particular one is that it is designed to bring us together and to find some common ground. One of the key things from Muskoka at the time was that the organizations that came together ahead of time to work with the government and the Prime Minister's Office were really focused on finding the things that 95% of Canadians probably could support at that time. They set aside some things that may have been more wedge issues, to really focus on something that brought people together. That had an enormous impact. However, we are in a different time than we were in then. When we consider the challenging budget situation we have right now, there are a few reasons why it is hard to get Canadians to bring up, at their doorsteps, international development. I think number one is addressed in the bill; I think there is a feeling that there is no accountability for the money being spent. I think there is a feeling that the money being spent is not effective. As well, I think there is a feeling that the money is going into the pockets of folks who are not spending it the way it is supposed to be spent, and there is a lack of transparency around it. I think the motion seeks to deal with some of those things. I also think that sometimes the language that gets used is sort of inner circle language or echo chamber language that Canadians have a hard time understanding. I will not get into the terminology. I have had lots of conversations about the terminology with people who work in the sector, but if I talk to my constituents in my incredible riding of Leduc—Wetaskiwin and use the language that the international development world uses, they do not really know what I am talking about. However, I noticed that the first part of the motion talks about reciprocal economic benefit, about harnessing Canadian innovators and small business and about Canadian economic strengths around clean energy, agriculture, digital tech and education. If I talk to my constituents about harnessing Alberta expertise in agriculture so we can deal with the food crisis around the world, it is easy to get them on board. If I talk about Albertans' expertise in drilling and energy, which is probably the most dedicated to being as clean as we can be in terms of energy production, and if I talk about harnessing that expertise to work with countries that have energy resources that are not being used to their economic benefit, I think I can win my constituents over on those conversations. Edmonton is a centre for AI through AMII, the Alberta Machine Intelligence Institute. If we talk about harnessing that expertise and putting it to work, working in partnership with people around the world who have the expertise though maybe not quite the same resources, that is a conversation that is really easy to have with my constituents if we just speak in the language that those constituents are using. I will just close by again thanking the hon. member for moving the motion. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of chatting about family, I will say that I was elected almost 20 years ago. My kids were 10 and six years old at the time I was elected. It has been a long time. A couple of weeks ago, my son celebrated his 30th birthday. I have talked about Jaden a lot in this place. My daughter, in a couple of weeks, is getting married. Time flies. There is a little bit of applause for our families back home. What caused me to get involved in politics was a concern for Canada's economic or fiscal situation back then. Of course in the mid-2000s, there was the sponsorship scandal we were facing, but if we go back a little in time, there is a history lesson that I think is really important, which happened under a Liberal government. After the budget, just recently, Fitch Ratings came out with a statement: “Canada’s...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances.” It went on to say, “persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.” This has happened before, under a Liberal government. A generation earlier, under Trudeau the first, Liberal governments ran deficits in 14 out of 15 straight years. Fast-forward to the Mulroney era. A lot of Liberals on the other side like to point to the deficits of the Mulroney era, but I think it is very instructive in this conversation that the deficits of the Mulroney era were entirely interest on Trudeau's debt, the debt that Pierre Trudeau had run up over 14 out of 15 years. It was a crushing amount, and the interest costs alone created some of the biggest deficits in Canadian history. In 1994, the Liberal government put forward a budget that did not go nearly far enough, and the ratings agencies and other financial experts were highly critical of that budget, to the point where, in the subsequent budget in 1995, the Liberal government of the day, the Chrétien-Martin government, had to cut 32% over two years from the health transfer and the social transfer; it was one transfer to the provinces back then that went to health, social services and education. We can imagine the ripple effect this had across the country. We are going through a time like that now. We have just come out of Trudeau the second. We have come out of 10 straight deficits in 10 years under Justin Trudeau's government. The current government came in and said it would be different. It called itself a new government, yet although the current Prime Minister promised he would get spending under control, the deficit in the most recent budget is infinitely higher and is substantially higher than what he promised in the election just six short months ago. I am hoping that the hon. member across the way, the hon. parliamentary secretary, will stand up and explain to Canadians his concern for the future of all the valuable social programs here in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member led off his comments by quoting a former PBO, somehow in defence of the government, saying, “Our economy is weak”. If the Liberals have a confidence problem, just about the worst advice that I can imagine is to spend their way out of it. They call it investment, but it is really just spending. Here is what happened in February 1994 according to a Reuters summary: The...Liberal government brings down what it considers to be a tough budget.... It nonetheless still has spending rising slightly, and immediate public and market reaction is it did not go nearly far enough.... January 1995—A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal headlined “Bankrupt Canada” calls Canada “an honorary member of the Third World”.... The next month, the Liberal government was forced to make the most vicious cuts to health care and social programs in Canadian history. We are on that same path. What does the hon. member suggest we do about it?

Mr. Speaker, speaking of experts, according to Fitch Ratings just yesterday, “Canada's...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government's finances...[and] persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.” This has happened before, with crushing impacts on Canadians. In the nineties, after similar rating pressure, the Liberal government of the day was forced to cut 32% from federal health and social transfers over just two years. Does anyone over there understand the gravity of this situation?

Mr. Speaker, ratings are always great until the day they are not. Here is a quick review of the early nineties from Reuters. In February 1994, it said, “The...Liberal government brings down what it considers to be a tough budget.... It nonetheless still has spending rising slightly, and immediate public and market reaction is it did not go nearly far enough.” In January 1995, it said, “A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal headlined ‘Bankrupt Canada’ calls Canada ‘an honorary member of the Third World.’” The next month, the Liberal government was forced to make the most vicious cuts to health care and social programs in Canadian history. Who over there is willing to take a stand to avoid a repeat?

Mr. Speaker, for decades in Canada, Conservative and Liberal governments alike have been steadfast leaders in the global fight to end polio. Partners include Global Citizen, Results and the Canadian Partnership for Women and Children's Health, but the undisputed leader in this mission is Rotary International, where there is no bigger champion than Canada's own Jennifer Jones, who became its first woman international president just a few years ago. Rotary's vision statement says, “Together, we see a world where people unite and take action to create lasting change—across the globe, in our communities, and in ourselves.” Canadian Rotarians and Rotaractors live this out every single day. Whether building playgrounds and spray parks in their local communities or eradicating polio worldwide, these friends and neighbours stand shoulder to shoulder, roll up their sleeves and just do the work. Today, we are closer than ever to ending polio once and for all. Working together, we will win. Along the way, every one of us will be individually better for having taken part in the fight.

Mr. Speaker, let us remember that Santa Claus is not spending taxpayer dollars. Every single dollar the Liberal government brags about spending comes from the pockets of hard-working Canadians, in the form of higher taxes and inflation. While Canadians line up at food banks in record numbers, their own money is being used by the Liberal government to hand out hundreds of millions of dollars in executive bonuses. Here is a case in point: Last year, 100% of Via Rail executives got bonuses, averaging $110,000. This is incomprehensible and irresponsible. Instead of trying to provoke a costly election with another costly Liberal budget, why not have an affordable budget for an affordable life, for all Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, in 2015, The New York Times reported that Canada had the richest middle class in the world. Just a decade later, our country is in an economic tailspin. What happened in 2015 was that the Liberal government took power, and many of its current ministers, including the finance minister, were elected. Here is where we are today: During an epic housing crisis, 99% of CMHC executives got bonuses, averaging $43,000. How is that okay? How is it that Canada, under their watch, went from the richest middle class in the world to a country where many middle-class Canadians cannot afford housing?

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honour one of the most incredible organizations in the history of sport. While others will no doubt pay tribute to our beloved Blue Jays this afternoon, I am here to celebrate the many Special Olympics athletes joining us in Ottawa today. For six decades, the Special Olympics has changed the lives of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities worldwide, including the over 40,000 Canadian athletes who participate today. One of those athletes is my own son Jaden, who radiates pure joy whenever he has a bowling ball in his hands. Another athlete is Damion, a multi-sport Special Olympian and athlete ambassador I met this morning. Damion is carrying the torch in a way that would make the legendary Joey Moss proud. I also want to salute the incomparable Mary Davis, CEO of Special Olympics International, soon retiring after 47 years of tireless leadership in the organization. As Special Olympics Canada prepares for the 2026 Canada Summer Games in Medicine Hat, I know colleagues from all sides of this House will join me in recognizing its invaluable contribution to our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Canadian Alliance on Mental Illness and Mental Health, or CAMIMH, and to highlight the importance of Mental Illness Awareness Week, which is taking place October 5 to October 11. CAMIMH has spent the last 25 years ensuring mental health and substance use health remain national priorities, advocating for awareness, reducing stigma and demanding life-changing care. Later this evening in Ottawa, CAMIMH will announce the 2025 Champions of Mental Health Awards, celebrating seven remarkable individuals and organizations making a lasting difference in communities across our country through their efforts. I want to extend my warmest congratulations to this year's honourees for their leadership and commitment to advancing mental health and substance use health. Each of these recipients is proof that change is possible when compassion is matched with concrete action. Together, let us continue striving for a Canada that understands and supports mental health and substance use health with the same urgency as physical health, a Canada that meets our awesome potential for everyone.

With regard to hotels and accommodations paid for by the government for asylum seekers, since January 1, 2022 and broken down by month: (a) what are the names and locations of the hotels and other accommodations which the government has paid to accommodate asylum seekers; and (b) what are the details of each hotel or accommodation in (a), including, for each, (i) the owner, (ii) the monthly amount paid by the government for accommodation, (iii) how many asylum seekers were accommodated?

Mr. Speaker, this week, Canada hosted the G7, and one of the people on the Prime Minister's invitation list was the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia currently has a sweetheart deal with Canada, shipping over two billion dollars' worth of Saudi oil a year to our Canadian east coast. Alberta oil, shipped to the same place, would face extremely onerous reporting requirements on upstream and downstream emissions, yet no such requirements exist for Saudi oil. Why?