Philip Lawrence
Northumberland—Clarke, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“When everyone else said that they were not going to get the sale or the business was not going to grow, Ziad would always find a way. If members have had the honour and privilege of meeting Lebanese Canadians, they know that, bar none, there are no better business people in this country or anywhere in the world.”
“They have been there, making those breakthroughs, making our world literally a better place, including saving lives with medical breakthroughs. Canada is more independent.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will get to the punchline because I do not want to keep the member waiting. We have always needed the type of entrepreneurship and innovation that has been led by Canadians of Arabic origin. I want to tell members a story about a Lebanese gentleman who I got to know. His name is Ziad. He is not the member in the House.”
“He supported other Lebanese members of his community within Canada. His daughter went on to be a very successful lawyer. That is the type of entrepreneurship innovation that Canada is increasingly in need of.”
“It makes all the sense in the world to acknowledge that diversity with a spirit of inclusivity so we can allow all Canadians to achieve the economic dream that, unfortunately, because of 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, has increasingly become more difficult to achieve.”
“Our inflation is still within range of 2.8%, but is creeping up. We have the highest food inflation. A quarter of the population is food-insecure. While we have always been highly dependent on Canadians of Arabic origin, we are even more dependent right now, because we need their entrepreneurial spirit.”
The complete record
Every one of 217 lines we hold for Philip Lawrence, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 5.
“I have no doubt about that, but I am hoping that some work can be done in committee, so that we do not just have a bureaucrat-led, one-size-fits-all solution, so that we bring in partners, so that we have agreement from the provinces, so that we have agreement from the premiers from coast to coast and so that we have agreement from industry, quite frankly. Whether one works for a multinational or whether one works for Parliament or whether one works for a premier, the reality is that we all have children and we all want the best for those children. We need to find a solution where we have everyone working together to make sure that children are protected, as there has clearly been an excess of advertising of online betting.”
“(1850) I have been there, like the member, sitting and watching sports, and I do probably watch too much sports. It is just amazing; we will see, in one show, three or four different advertisements for online sports betting. We will then see them on the boards of the skating rink. We will see them in the back of the basketball stadium. We will see them in the baseball stadium, in the back. They are just absolutely everywhere. They are invasive. Just as the government has stepped in and regulated advertisements on things like alcohol and nicotine and smoking, I think it makes sense to have a process here. The Bloc Québécois actually raised a terrific point, in that a lot of this is provincial jurisdiction. When we look at national frameworks, the idea is good.”
“There are a couple of issues I have with this legislation, and I hope they will be fleshed out at committee. Of course, we will be supporting it to go to committee, and we hope it will get fleshed out. The overall driving principle of this legislation to expose our children to less gambling advertising is going in a positive direction. I really do not think anyone can say no to that. In fact, I am told that there are industries out there right now that are self-regulating and self-imposing those regulations with respect to the amount of advertising. To those folks I would say that is a great job and may they keep it up. The less government we have the better. In this case, I think there is a need for some intervention, unless of course the industry can get together and control its own house, which would be great.”
“What is that number? One of the things I do when I look at legislation or at laws as we try to make the best decisions in this House, which I believe all 343 members attempt to do, is that I look at it as if we were driving to that perfect society where we all live in prosperity and abundance, where we are kind and gentle with each other and where we only have good days, and I ask if this law would get us closer to that. I am not naive. I know we will certainly not get there in my lifetime, and probably not even after that, but as a House, as legislators, we should be striving toward that goal. When I see this legislation, I say, yes, this is another step toward it, because it starts to rein in and regulate the amount of advertising.”
“Some of the other speakers also talked about this earlier with respect to the particularly vulnerable groups in this: young men and boys. If we go to a high school, we would see that nearly every teenage boy, and every teenage girl for that matter, has a phone. If we looked at what was on their phones, I can guarantee members that over 80% or 90% of them have a gambling app. That is scary because it is leading them down a path. Not everyone will go down the path where it will have a big impact on their life, but some will. What is the number of individuals who go down that path and have that challenge? What are we willing to accept in society? Is it okay if one in 10, one in 100, or one in 1,000 give up their life to a horrible gambling addiction that sucks in friends and family members as they try to support these people?”
“Seeing them enjoy watching team Canada's hockey team compete, which won five to nothing, brings joy around. My chosen NFL team is the Buffalo Bills and there is nothing better than sitting around with friends and family and crying together as they lose yet again in the divisional round. There is a purity to people competing, giving everything they can, working so very hard to get to that great moment and coming together as a team. Anyone who has worked as a team, which is what we are in the House of Commons, knows the thrill of coming together, putting someone else's interests above ours and competing to get the best possible product, or bill, and winning the game. There is a purity and a greatness to that. I must say that the gambling around this has tainted it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have to say this debate has been excellent. I have learned many things. I will start off with the joy of sports, and the member for Waterloo talked about this a bit. I was never much of an athlete, much to the disappointment of my father who was an athlete, but the one thing I could do was watch sports. One of the greatest joys I have is either watching my daughter compete in her competitive dance or watching my son compete at hockey. He is a goaltender and is at a tournament tomorrow, so I would ask everyone to please wish him good luck. There is nothing that I enjoy doing more than watching them compete and have a great time. What I also love to do is sit around the house, when we get that break from time to time, and watch sports with them.”
“Mr. Speaker, discussion is a good thing. [ English ] However, my question is one I have posed to a number of Liberal members. We know 99% of the cars that will be subsidized as a result of this program will be built outside of Canada. When will it grow to at least 2%, if not 5% or 10%?”
“Mr. Speaker, we have asked this question a number of times, and we have yet to receive a response. It is a serious question. Currently, 99% of the EVs that will receive the subsidy from the government are made elsewhere than in Canada. At what point will it get to 5% or 10%?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would go back to the original point that ministers have the ability to set in place the accountability and the responsibility within existing legislation. Let us have a culture of accountability and responsibility. Let us implement the treaties. Let us walk, or in fact run, down the path to truth and reconciliation.”
“Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, the member would be in a much better position to answer his question than I am. From my experience of talking to the first nations who are located within the riding of Northumberland, one of their big frustrations is the fact that they cannot get answers. They get pushed from one bureaucrat to another. They seek nation-to-nation communications, clarity and answers. They do not need another bureaucracy. They do not need another federal office.”
“Mr. Speaker, if government officials are not respecting the treaties, then the minister , through accountability, has to hold those folks responsible. If that means finding new people, then do it. If that means firing people who are not actioning the implementation of the treaties, then do it.”
“We don't want this accountability.” Instead they are going to put it on another bureaucracy that will without doubt spend millions, if not more, of Canadian taxpayer dollars without actually making life any better for indigenous people. We need a government that lives up to its promises and truly walks us down the path of truth and reconciliation, making life better for all Canadians, making life better for all indigenous peoples, making life better for all children across the land and making sure that every indigenous child has access to clean drinking water.”
“What we require are ministers and senior officials who take ownership of their legal duties and processes, whether under modern treaties, self-government agreements or historical agreements. A commissioner will not change the culture; accountability will. In fact, I have written letters to multiple ministers, several about local indigenous issues. The great Alderville First Nation is within boundaries of the Northumberland—Clarke riding. Its people have forwarded issues, and I have still not had a response to those issues. Instead of responding to Parliament, the accountability that exists in the House, the Liberals are just going to try to obscure and move things over to another bureaucracy, saying, “Look over there. We don't want this responsibility.”
“Between 2015 and 2017 alone, they created a web of entities: the modern treaty implementation office, assessment of modern treaty implications, performance networks, oversight committees and the reconciliation secretariat. The government has a very poor record when it comes to modern treaty interpretation and enforcement. The government is, quite frankly, not getting it done. The answer is not another level of bureaucracy. It is not another set of regulations. It is simply the same thing that I am sure all parliamentarians try to instill into their children: that when they make a promise, they live up to that promise. That is what the government has to do. No matter how many levels of bureaucracy are stacked on, it does not necessarily mean that the promises will be lived up to.”
“The second part is living up to our promises, our commitments. If we commit to anyone that we are going to do something, it is the very basis of human nature, of any type of code of morality from any religion, or any secular code, that we need to live up to that commitment. We are here in 2026 talking about a promise that was made in 2015. Before implementing another level of government bureaucracy, why do we not just live up to the promises made in the House to first nations peoples? Too often, whenever the Liberals see a problem, they see a government agency they need to create. The Liberals should in fact look back at their own track record.”
“(1610) Rather than demanding accountability from “Ottawa knows best” bureaucrats, the Liberals propose creating new layers of bureaucracy and spending more money at a time when Canadians can ill afford it. I might say, it is a particularly poor time to spend funds that could go directly towards the implementation of treaties. Money could go directly towards helping or assisting first nations, for example in making sure that every indigenous child has access to clean drinking water, which was a pledge made in 2015 by the Liberal government. The Liberals committed that, within five years, every indigenous child would have access to clean drinking water. Here we are in 2026, and that pledge still has not been made good on. The first step towards truth and reconciliation is the truth part.”
“We need parliamentarians to step up and not be afraid to criticize the government and not be afraid to criticize the actions of their civil servants and hold them accountable if they are not taking the necessary actions and steps of treaties as we go forward. Conservatives support treaty rights and the process of reconciliation with Canada's first nations, Inuit and Métis people. In the span of six years, the former Conservative government negotiated five modern treaties. The Liberals have negotiated none in ten years in office. The Office of the Auditor General has conducted over two dozen reports, including audits, since 2005 into treaty negotiations and matters that affect indigenous people.”
“The so-called new government is continuing the ways of the so-called old government: If in fact there is a problem, it creates a new government office. Ronald Reagan once said that the closest thing to eternal life in this world is a government office. Despite the fact that we do not have results, we just get more and more government offices that spend more tax dollars without getting results. In fact in some cases we get the exact opposite of the outcome we want, which in this case is the administration of treaties in accordance with legislation and in accordance with the path towards truth and reconciliation. This is because, as we build more and more bureaucracies, the truth gets more and more obscured. We need to hold civil servants accountable. That starts with the government, quite frankly.”
“The reality is that, despite the Prime Minister 's promises, we languish near the bottom of the G7 economies, even though we have many different government agencies, including a housing agency and a national projects office. I might take a moment to pause and discuss the national projects office. I worked closely with my Liberal counterparts to legislate the creation of the national projects office, but here we are, nearly a year later, at least eight months, and as of yet no projects have been approved. Because of an Order Paper question, we know that the government has spent close to a million dollars, and probably more, because the answer is a little dated now, yet no projects have been approved There has been a pattern over the last 10 years.”
“The commissioner would not have enforcement powers and would focus on independent reviews, auditing and reporting, rather than on direct intervention. Of course, Conservatives support modern treaties, and if someone has been reviewing the debate, they would see that my comments would be squarely within the Conservative argument. Of course, we believe in these debates and we believe in the treaties, but we believe ultimately in enforcement; the government needs to take action to rectify wrongs as opposed to having another level of bureaucracy. Let us face it: After a decade of Liberal rule, if agencies, bureaucrats and offices were to create solutions, we would be living in the best economy in the world.”
“The mandate of the commissioner would be to conduct reviews and performance audits on federal government institutions' activities related to implementing modern treaties, comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements with indigenous peoples post-1970s, and to monitor and report on how well the federal government fulfills its obligations, commitments and relationships under these treaties. It would aim to promote accountability; rebuild trust between the Crown and modern treaty partners, indigenous groups and self-governing first nations; and address long-standing, for more than 20 years in many cases, calls for better oversight and implementation of treaty promises. The commissioner would report the findings to Parliament to help ensure that the government's actions would align with its treaty obligations.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise. Once again I would like to take 30 seconds to thank the wonderful people of Northumberland—Clarke for sending me here again, for a third time. It is a privilege of a lifetime and an honour of a lifetime to work for them here in the House of Commons. Of course, we are here today to talk about Bill C-10 . I will go over it relatively briefly, as there has been debate already on this very important bill. Bill C-10 would establish the independent commissioner of modern treaty implementation as an agent of Parliament. It would create the office of the commissioner to support this role.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7, yet under his watch, $58 billion of net investments have fled to the United States and we have lost 28,000 manufacturing jobs. Promising to build a pipeline is not enough. Creating a new bureaucracy is not enough. Reapproving projects over and over again is not enough. We need shovels in the ground, and we need them in the ground now. When will the Prime Minister do what he promised, build at a scale we have not seen in generations and work with Conservatives to stand up for our sovereignty against the American threat?”
“Mr. Speaker, it always worries me when the government opens up with “I have good news”, because it rarely is. What we are asking for, and what Canadians want, are new pipelines and new projects. The amount that the Liberals have approved is absolutely zero. The government needs to reverse course, which has led two million Canadians to food banks, admit that its policies have failed, embrace Conservative principles fully and collaborate with Conservatives to bring prosperity back to our country.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2014, under the then Conservative government, the New York Times declared that Canada's middle class was the richest in the world. Now our middle class faces skyrocketing costs and taxes, a stagnant GDP per capita and a declining standard of living. The Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing G7 economy by building major national projects. However, the Liberals built none, and they continue to build none. The time to act is now. When will the Liberals collaborate with Conservatives and finally bring prosperity back to our great land?”
“Mr. Speaker, Ronald Reagan once said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on...in the bloodstream.” It has to be fought for. That is exactly what the brave protesters in Iran are doing right now. It is hard, through the obscurity of Internet and telecommunications blackouts, to see exactly what is going on in Iran, but media and human rights organizations put the death toll at over 30,000. We simply cannot afford to turn a blind eye to the atrocities that are occurring right now in Iran. A government that slaughters its own people is weak and pathetic and must be stood up against. That is why we all must stand unequivocally behind the people of Iran for their freedom.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is the same government and the same old tired lines. The Liberals have the temerity to get up in the House of Commons and tell the 2.2 million Canadians who are using food banks right now, “Stop complaining; people have never had it so good.” Well, Conservatives are not so easily fooled. We know that millions of Canadians are struggling. When will the Liberals finally take meaningful action and reduce the cost of food by reducing and eliminating the industrial carbon tax and the fuel standard tax?”
“Mr. Speaker, according to StatsCan, food inflation is now up to 6.2%. Canada has the highest food inflation in the G7. Food prices are rising twice as high in Canada as they are the United States. Driving up the cost of food is the more expensive, less transparent replacement for the consumer carbon tax. They are called the fuel standard tax and the industrial carbon tax, which are increasing costs for farmers, food processors and truckers. When will the Liberals finally admit that a carbon tax by any name is painful?”
“Our country will become stronger, more sovereign and more autonomous and be the best country in the world to live in, because we have the greatest people in the world in Canada. That is why I call upon this government to do the right thing: Pass our motion, support us and make sure that Canada stays a sovereign, independent country, so that we have generations of success and prosperity, and we do not fall into the trap of the socialist death spiral.”
“The first year under the Prime Minister has accelerated that decline. If we are going to be an independent country, we need to get our resources out of the ground and build Canadian energy and the Canadian economy. We simply will not do this by just adding more bureaucracy. More government agents are not the answer here. The answer is not the Canadian government; it is the Canadian people. We need to embolden and unleash Canadians to do what they do best: create jobs, create wealth for our wonderful country and create prosperity from coast to coast. The sovereignty act would allow free trade throughout the provinces. It would allow our resources to get to market. We will build a stronger nation that is truly autonomous, and that will not happen because of some speech given in Davos.”
“What Conservatives pledge to do and what a Canada sovereignty act would allow us to do would be to provide financial benefits and incentives. This would mean that instead of provinces being punished for doing the right things, which they are right now and which may be hurting their own industry to help the national cause to make us more sovereign and more autonomous, we would provide that financial benefit, which would help them instead of hurting them as the existing framework does. We need to look forward in eliminating these barriers from coast to coast, but we need to make sure it happens in a way that helps all of our economy. The reality is that over the last 10 years, this economy has been weakened by socialist policies that have brought our GDP per capita to nearly zero.”
“Despite the many eloquent speeches and photo ops with premiers, the Liberal government has failed to eliminate these barriers. While leadership has definitely been a problem, at the heart of it is also a framework. The reality is that some interprovincial trade barriers are simply there because of the division of powers in our Constitution. That is the way that the system has sort of evolved, but also, in many cases, those interprovincial trade barriers were put in place intentionally, to protect local industries, local economies and provincial industries in those areas against large national corporations or other things that would disturb and disrupt local economies. If, in fact, we do not acknowledge this, we are asking provinces to act against their own self-interest.”
“If anyone has been outside, it is pretty cold. We are well past July, yet the vast majority of interprovincial trade barriers are still in place. Many of the ministers and members on the other side promised there would be hundreds of billions of dollars. I have asked government officials, and they have not been able to quantify one single dollar from the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers. These billions of dollars that were supposed to help grow the Canadian economy, create jobs and strengthen our sovereignty are not here. To be fair, the government did make some baby steps with the help of Conservative members, with Bill C-5 , toward eliminating federal interprovincial trade barriers, but that was a mere drop in the bucket. Most trade barriers are provincially legislated and, therefore, require provincial legislative changes.”
“Why should a nurse in Manitoba require different accreditation from a nurse in Nova Scotia? Presumably, the human body is the same in Nova Scotia as it is in Manitoba. Why should beer being produced in Prince Edward Island not be available in Ontario? If it is delicious on the east coast, it will be delicious here in Ontario. Why should a construction site in Manitoba require a different type of portable toilet from a construction site in Ontario? These things do not make sense, and we all agree on it. The challenge, once again, is not just dreaming about it and not just wishing for it; it is about getting it done. (1355) The Liberal government made a bold promise. It promised that by Canada Day, it would eliminate all interprovincial trade barriers. Canada Day has come and gone. No longer are we in the warmth of July.”
“There are many, many people who are favourably disposed to eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. In fact, nearly every economist and nearly every expert has opined on the importance of eliminating interprovincial trade barriers and the benefits that it would have on the economy. However, there are very few leaders who have demonstrated the will and the fortitude to get this done. The calculation of the benefits of interprovincial trade and the elimination of interprovincial trade barriers varies. Experts go anywhere from tens of billions of dollars to even hundreds of billions of dollars, but at the heart of it, everyone believes that it would have benefits and that it is only common sense to eliminate these barriers. As an example, here are some of the things that just do not make sense.”
“Now, somehow, the Liberals take credit for the elimination of the carbon tax and the benefits it has had. Will the government finally take that step in the right direction, away from socialism and toward prosperity? Will the UN's former climate czar really build a pipeline? I have my doubts. As shadow minister for intergovernmental affairs and one Canadian economy and interprovincial trade, my speech will focus on interprovincial trade and some of the Liberal promises. Michael Jordan, the famous basketball player, once said, “Some people want it to happen, some wish it would happen, others make it happen.” Conservatives are here to be the ones who make it happen, and we can see on the other side that, at best, they will wish and dream of its happening.”
“Dollar for dollar, citizens get poorer and poorer, which then increases the need for additional social welfare programs, which then increases the debt, which increases taxes, which repeats the cycle, and before we know it, we have more poverty and more of the socialist poverty that we have seen in countries like Venezuela, the Soviet Union and Cuba. Will the government finally put a line in the sand, go no further and in fact turn around and acknowledge that those policies of the last 10 years are a failure? We have seen, to the government's credit, a repudiation of many of the Trudeau-era policies. In fact, it is somewhat unbelievable sometimes when I hear these members brag about eliminating the carbon tax, when many members, including me, for more than a decade have been shouting that the carbon tax is not the right way to go.”
“Over the last 10 years, we have actually seen the lowest GDP-per-capita growth across the G7; in fact, it is nearly zero. We have seen the worst economic record since the Great Depression. In the first year of this Prime Minister , it has not gotten any better. In fact, it has gotten worse. The Liberal government has the opportunity, though, to act on its rhetoric, to actually engage in actions that promote economic growth, government efficiency and international trade and move away from the Liberals' socialist death spiral, which always starts the same way: They need more taxes to give more things away. The problem is, the more they tax, the more they impoverish citizens.”
“Mr. Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this House. Over the past year, Canada has been subjected to unfair, hostile and even capricious economic actions by the current administration of the United States. Most Canadians are united in our resolve to stand up against these actions. Many would even call it bullying. What many are starting to realize, though, is that in order for Canada to stand up, our economy must stand on its own two feet. In the face of these challenges, the Liberal government has conveniently discovered a new-found respect for economic growth, resource development, reducing taxes and even government efficiency, although, having expressed a desire to make Canada stronger, the record is clear.”
“Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to read into the record what has happened at the transport committee. The record is as follows: November 18, meeting cancelled by Chair; November 20, meeting cancelled by Chair; November 25, Liberal filibuster; November 27, meeting cancelled by Chair; and December 2, Liberal filibuster. Then the Chair got up and said the committee was going to suspend for 30 minutes and ran out the back door. December 4 was a Liberal filibuster. We are scheduled for another filibuster tomorrow. Is this the Liberals' definition of “productivity”?”
“Mr. Speaker, at the transport committee, we had the chair suspend for 30 minutes, get up and then leave out the back door. While I did hear about the justice committee's cancelling of numerous meetings, the gavelling of meetings and the filibustering, was there anything as bad as that, or was the transportation committee the worst for Liberal conduct?”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for one of the best speeches I have heard in this place, and I mean that without hyperbole. I am wondering if the member could expand upon what he believes a Conservative, or any, government could do to help youth get out of the current quagmire the government has put them in.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want lots of regulations that they do not enforce. Conservatives want less regulation that we do enforce. That, I think, would go a long way to solving the Driver Inc. problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we actually lost full-time jobs, and most of the jobs created were part-time, which shows that Canadians are struggling. We need the great full-time jobs that should have been at Stellantis, Algoma Steel and Weetabix in my riding. It is the government driving out the economic wealth creators, the job creators, that is causing our Canadian economy to lose great, union jobs.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, one of the greatest challenges to democracy, certainly in the 20th century and likely before then, is demagogues. That is what we hear from that side. We call it modern-day gaslighting. The reality is that Canada's economy is not as strong as it should be. Our oil and gas sector, which drove productivity historically for Canada, has been kneecapped by the government. We had the worst GDP per capita growth since the Great Depression over the last 10 years. The government will seize on the smallest bit of good information and try to exploit it to make it look like something that is not true. If members want to see the issues in the Canadian economy, they can come down to Cobourg's Fare Share Food Bank and they will see the reality.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is so much I disagree with in that, but I will focus on my shadow cabinet area, which is interprovincial trade. The member should consult with his own bureaucrats, whom I wrote to and asked exactly how much the reduction in interprovincial trade barriers, the federal interprovincial trade barriers, and the progress they have made on that has contributed to the economy. They said that it was zero, which is how much sense this member makes.”
“The government is, in most cases, not the answer. In fact, it is the culprit. It is responsible for driving down our economy. It is the reason we have had the worst economic growth since the Great Depression. We need to, once again, not trust in the Canadian government but trust in the Canadian people. We need to correct the fiscal financial imbalance that has given way too much money to the federal government and not enough money to Canadian citizens, entrepreneurs and job creators.”
“As our leader has said, if you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything. The reality is that you must take a picture of the total debt calculation, which includes provincial and federal debt as well as the debt required for the CPP. We cannot use CPP money to apply to debt, which is what the Liberals do when they try to say they do not have a debt issue. That money is already spent, or at least I hope it is. Otherwise, they are going to rob CPP. The reality is that when we take that calculation, we are the second-worst, with a total debt ratio of well over 100% of our GDP. We are second only to Japan, which had its own lost decade. We have experienced ours and, quite frankly, we continue to experience that. What do we need to get back on track as a country? We need to move away from seeing government as the answer.”
“We have seen the impact of the socialist death spiral. Most notable in the not-too-distant past was the Soviet Union, which centralized everything and snuffed out the private sector and innovation from going forward. We have seen this in Venezuela, Cuba and in other states around the world as well. That is all well and good, but what do we do for a solution? I will tell the House where we are in Canada before getting into solving this issue. Canada is headed toward that path. There is just no denying that with a $1.35-trillion debt, a $78-billion deficit and $55 billion being paid in interest. Unfortunately, we will hear individuals on the other side, if not purposely then unintentionally, misleading Canadians by stating that Canada's debt is not that high.”