Adam Chambers
Simcoe North, Ontario · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the residents, recreational users, camp owners and indigenous communities surrounding Lake Couchiching who are concerned about an aerodrome being placed on the water, on the lake. It is a very busy lake.”
“We need a tax reform package to lower taxes, business and personal, and significantly reduce complexity. On regulation, we need service standards for permitting. We need to pre-approve projects in areas of the country, which means they can be done faster.”
““This has made it more likely that a new shock or a combination of shocks could cause several vulnerabilities to crystallize at once,” said the senior deputy governor, Carolyn Rogers.”
“In fact, according to Sean Speer, editor-at-large at The Hub, all of this is a bit of silly semantics: “The real questions are: how much does the economy suck, how long has it sucked, why does it suck, and what are the different ideas to stop it from sucking.” We have a productivity crisis in this country, and everybody knows it.”
“We have the build Canada office, and then the sovereign wealth fund, which will be funded, of course, with debt. (1755) Now I would like to turn, for the reminder of my comments, to a specific risk that I think is growing and that the government should be paying more attention to.”
“We borrow mostly on the short end of the curve, so what happens is that this debt has to be rolled over every two or three years. That is like signing up for only a one- or two-year mortgage on a house. One would have to go to the bank, and guess what happens. Their interest rate gets reset every single time.”
The complete record
Every one of 208 lines we hold for Adam Chambers, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 5.
“Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has brought to this chamber a bill that, on its face, may receive some positive reviews from our side, but we will have to wait to hear and see the bill and examine it at committee. The minister mentioned rules-based trade. I wondered if he would state for this House whether he agrees with the Prime Minister , who said the rules-based trading system is dead, or whether he agrees with the president of the EU Central Bank, a former IMF chair and minister of finance of France, who said that she does not agree with the Canadian Prime Minister.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to just let the member's comment stand and correct the record. I appreciate that, but I do appreciate her judgment when she said that she has been misled by the government in what she has read and what its actions are.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from a wonderful MP. It is the first time I have received a question from her in this chamber, and it definitely will not be the last. Forty-one per cent of Canadians voted for the Conservative platform in the election. That is a substantial number of Canadians, and a record, in fact, in this modern age. I think the government would be well placed to take some of these ideas and recognize that they resonate in cities, of course, but they also resonate in areas in rural Canada, where people want and need more development but do not need to come cap in hand to ask the government to please put them on the list or to hire the right lobbyist to get them on the list. I appreciate the opportunity to address these issues today.”
“Mr. Speaker, in other countries, including Israel, if a company has been subsidized by the government for the research and development of its intellectual property, when that company is purported to be sold or the IP is transferred out of the country, the company is required to send a payment back to the government that is a multiple of the subsidy it received. That money then provides additional research and development dollars that can be reinvested in new research and development. I think that is a model the government should consider. If it does not want to do the multiple, it should at least require that dollar for dollar be repaid to the Canadian taxpayer to be reinvested in research and development to develop intellectual property that remains in this country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to update the member on some developments. We are working with the government. In fact, we just had the Minister of International Trade at committee today to help the Liberals fast-track their bill on the U.K.'s accession to the CPTPP. We have also told them that we will help them get their Indonesian trade deal passed. However, Canadians voted for a minority government. The only reason that the government and its MPs are trying to lure anybody from any other party to join theirs is so they do not have to collaborate with any other opposition party in this chamber.”
“We will work with the Prime Minister 's government in this trying time to help him put some wins on the board. Hopefully the Liberals will take these comments into consideration, and I welcome their questions.”
“The Prime Minister said that when middle nations negotiate with larger powers bilaterally, they are in a worse position. That was just days after signing a bilateral deal with the CCP. He said that China is the largest security threat to Canada and now inks a deal with it. Perhaps the most devastating is that after the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands voted for the budget and the MOU was signed with the Alberta government, she said that the Prime Minister intentionally misled her in those negotiations. We should take those accusations by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands very seriously. She has developed a very good reputation in the House. When she says that she was misled by the Prime Minister, I believe that he is growing a credibility deficit. These are the opportunities that we are offering to the government.”
“It means that $980 million will go from Canadian automakers that have footprints and manufacturing here to a Chinese automaker. That is four times the profit margin on that car already. The CCP wants access to the Canadian market because of the regulatory system the government has set up, which makes absolutely no sense. We would be willing to work with the government on that basis. The Prime Minister also is developing a bit of a credibility deficit. He was for increasing carbon taxes and then he abandoned them. He was against pipelines and now he might be for them. He said he would spend less and invest more, but his deficits are bigger than former prime minister Justin Trudeau's. He said he would deliver a closer economic and defence security partnership with the U.S., and now he says we need a new world order.”
“We need to not give ministers this additional power. We need to allow the system to work better by drastically reforming it and removing government, not by putting more government on top. This leads me to one of the other areas we have recommended to work with the government on, which is the electric vehicle mandate. Do members know why the CCP, the Chinese Communist Party, desperately wants us to allow its Chinese vehicles into Canada? It is monetary. There may be some non-monetary issues, but the average profit on a car is about $3,000 to $5,000. Every electric vehicle that is sold by a Chinese company in Canada will immediately be eligible to receive a $20,000 purchase of credits by an automaker in Canada. What does that mean?”
“It is a complete admission that the existing regulatory system does not work when the government has to put itself in a position to create a new system in order to fast-track projects. Also, 90% of the projects that have been listed or referred to the Major Projects Office are already nearing completion. These are not net new projects. We need net new development and investment in our natural resource sector to get our resources to market. We need to support the business community to do that, but not by forcing everyone to come to the government, hat in hand, begging to be put on the major projects list. If the last 10 years have taught us anything, it is that for Liberal ministers, or those they appoint to choose favour, the temptation is too great and they often end up currying favour to their friends.”
“In fact, some countries actually make those companies repay a multiple of the subsidy that they received when that intellectual property is transferred out of the country. We would support the industry minister going in that direction. The Prime Minister has told the world and this country that he has embarked on an ambitious agenda, but he has to start putting some wins on the board. Signing a few agreements and making agreements to agree is not putting shovels in the ground. (1340) In fact, the Prime Minister 's Major Projects Office, which the Liberals will tout as a serious accomplishment, is yet another layer of bureaucracy on an already unmanageable bureaucratic regulatory system to get things done.”
“We are encouraging the government, through the industry minister , to find ways to make that happen, but here is an easy example: With the scientific research and development credits, when a company that has received that tax preference and has gotten very generous tax deductions for making investments in scientific research and development creates Canadian IP using taxpayer subsidies to do so, and that company or intellectual property is sold to anyone outside of this country, why not ask or require that company to repay the federal government and taxpayers the money that it received or the subsidies that it benefited from when it developed that IP? If that IP stays in Canada, they would not have to pay it back, but when it leaves, we have to require that the subsidy be repaid. That is just the most appropriate thing to do.”
“Provinces will likely only respond to financial incentives to make the right decision, so the government should provide provinces with that monetary incentive and basically say that if they remove their trade barriers, the federal government would provide to them, in greater transfers, a share of the revenue that comes from the increased business activity that happens. Finally, it is a long-standing recommendation of Conservatives, and in fact even of parliamentary committees in previous Parliaments, that intellectual property created in Canada and funded by Canadian taxpayers has to remain in Canada.”
“If an individual sells a building or somebody sells an investment and those proceeds are reinvested within Canada, within our borders or in a Canadian company, we are proposing that the government can either defer the capital gains tax or eliminate it completely. That would absolutely have the immediate effect of spurring investment in this country. We should be rewarding provinces that take down trade barriers between other provinces. I remember that the government said, very famously, that by Canada Day we would have free trade in Canada. It is well past Canada Day and we do not have free trade in this country.”
“When Canadians make more things, we also make and receive bigger paycheques for our people and our standard of living increases. As members know, our standard of living has been on the decline. In fact, if we measure it by GDP per capita, our standard of living today is worse than it was in 2019, so the Conservatives are willing to work with the government. We are suggesting ways we can do this, but generally speaking, we are proposing to drastically reduce and reform regulatory systems to help spur development. We recommend cutting taxes on investments when companies and individuals reinvest those proceeds in Canada. I will give an example.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank our pages for all the great work they do to keep us on the straight and narrow. Before I start, I would like to mention that I am splitting my time with the wonderful, esteemed member for Northumberland—Clarke , who has a new riding name. I am sure his speech will be absolutely excellent. It is important that we are here today at this moment to discuss areas in which the government may find collaboration and co-operation opportunities with members of His Majesty's loyal opposition. There is a list of what I will call wish-list items that Conservatives have put forward that Liberals would have support from Conservatives in moving ahead, but I would also mention that this is about creating an environment in Canada where we make more things more quickly.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals committed $15 billion to Stellantis only to have it ship 3,000 jobs south of the border. In fact, just in the White House yesterday, Stellantis says it is investing $13 billion in the U.S. to create 5,000 jobs. Every time the government makes a deal, it seems like executives get taken care of while employees get overlooked. When will this Liberal government prioritize jobs for Canadians instead of corporate welfare for executives?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot for his diligent work on this file and for helping me in my quest to draft this legislation. Absolutely, I do not believe that a corporation deserves any privacy when it owes the treasury or the CRA any money that is all of a sudden waived. There should be no expectation of privacy when that occurs, especially as those amounts have gotten higher and higher and higher. This bill is focused on the writeoffs that are in excess of $1 million. I am open to suggestions on other thresholds, but I do not believe, and I strongly agree with my colleague, that there should be any expectation of privacy when amounts of that size are written off.”
“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my fellow colleague from the Bloc. He always has a very thoughtful question and intervention in this place. As I mentioned in the speech, transparency is very important. In terms of cost, I would just say that much of the work is already being done in these departments to understand what corporations owe what money. This bill would just require some of that information to be made public. Today, the people at CRA already know who owes what money. They already know what they write off because they have to publish the aggregate numbers in the public accounts every year. My estimate would be that this bill would not incur any additional costs to government. It would just require that some of the information it already holds be made public.”
“Madam Speaker, I spent a number of hours with my hon. colleague at the finance committee as he made sure that the previous government got its budget bills passed all the way through. It might have been a painful process, but the Liberals did get through it in the end. I would say that I am open to reasonable suggestions. It was not my intention to create additional problems with respect to partnerships, because they are structured differently, of course. The primary thrust of this bill was to focus on corporations and trusts, with a strong emphasis on corporations. As I say, I would be open to suggestions regarding how to improve that portion of the bill if members think there is a better way to accomplish the objective.”
“I am doing what I can to help the government balance the budget. That is what we should be here to do. I would love to see this go through this evening. I would love to hear some feedback from my colleagues from other parties. I would also like to mention the hon. member for Abitibi—Tamiskaming , the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan and the hon. member for Mirabel . I have spoken with them about the importance of this issue, both at the finance committee and at other committees. As well, I have had positive and encouraging conversations with the minister , which I very much appreciate, about giving this a fair hearing here in this place tonight. I would just ask my hon. colleagues to keep an open mind. I appreciate the opportunity, as I said. It is an honour to have the chance to make a change to the laws of this country.”
“I believe it is an honour to be able to present a bill in this place and to present one that has a chance of potentially becoming law. I would not like to prejudge the rest of the debate here this evening, but I appreciate the opportunity to stand here tonight to make a good-faith effort to increase the transparency for taxpayers, to improve the laws of the country and to make sure we are doing what we can in this place to help people with affordability, because we will be able to use some of the money that is recovered to help people. Whether that will be through tax breaks or whether that will be through increased social supports, it is the real reason we are here. The government is in a perpetual state of deficit. This is my good-faith effort to help it climb out of the hole it has dug for itself.”
“Just in 2024-25, 265 corporations alone had debts written off in excess of $1 million. These are substantial amounts. If members think about what we argue about here every day about certain amounts of money going toward various social programs, this is money that, if collected, could be either given to Canadians in social supports or reduced from their tax bill. It is incredibly important that we take this issue seriously. When I was the shadow critic for the Canada Revenue Agency in the last Parliament, I was underwhelmed by the seriousness with which previous ministers took this issue. When they decided to hide behind the privacy restrictions of section 241, I thought to myself that we should change the law. I was lucky enough to have drawn a high number in the lottery.”
“I have faith in the great folks at the CRA that, if we were to implement this legislation, they would implement this registry along with the President of the Treasury Board and other officials with the same amount of vigour they have when using the existing tax law and applying the existing restrictions in section 241, which they claim prohibit them from releasing this information. (1740) I believe that one of the reasons we are here today is that there has been a lack of will and a lack of oversight at the CRA to make sure that this situation is not getting worse, but the numbers could not paint a different picture. The amount of corporate writeoffs are increasing at alarming levels. As I mentioned, the top five corporations had over $1 billion written off in one year.”
“I have worked diligently on this with many members from all parties in the House, including in the last Parliament, such as the NDP, the Bloc and the government party. I believe all parties have an opportunity to do something in the public interest here. I am encouraged by the conversations I have had. I hope we may advance this to committee if there are some issues with the legislation or some constructive suggestions from my colleagues in either party or the government. I would welcome those suggestions in the spirit of making sure we can give taxpayers and the public more information about how their tax dollars are being used.”
“These are frauds that are perpetrated on the Canadian people, and the Canadian people deserve to understand why this is happening, how much is being lost, and what we can do to prevent this in the future. As I say, the overall objective is to ensure we can lower the tax burden on all Canadians, and we can do that if we just collect the money we are supposed to collect from the corporations that owe it. To give greater clarity to the bill, this bill does not go after the personal, private information of individual tax filers. This bill only impacts corporations and trusts. It is currently also geared towards partnerships, but I recognize that may bring some issues, which leads me to another point.”
“Frankly, the general public deserves to know why certain corporations are unable to pay their debts. Could we do a better job of assessing them in the first place? Could we understand whether there are frauds being perpetrated on the Canadian public or on the Canadian taxpayer? For example, it was widely reported last year that, within the CRA, there were fake tax returns and fake refunds that were processed to a number of fraudulent, likely connected, organized criminals, not just through COVID supports, the wage subsidies and the CERB, but through filing false income tax claims and false HST claims. These frauds perpetrated on the CRA are frauds that are perpetrated on the taxpayer.”
“This has to be a pillar of what we try to do here in this place, which is to provide income tax relief to hard-working Canadians. We can do that if we collect the money we are supposed to collect from corporations. How big of a deal is this? Just last year, in the public accounts for the fiscal year of 2023-24, five corporations had over a billion dollars of their debts owing to the government written off. This is an astronomical sum, which has been increasing every year since about 2016-17. The rate these writeoffs are increasing is alarming. Something is happening, and I believe greater transparency would help parliamentarians provide better laws and better tools to the CRA and the other departments that are supposed to collect debts from corporations, which we could do if we had greater information.”
“I believe that the current bill complements a bill that he has moving through that chamber, which would help identify the tax gap and report to Parliament the amounts of money that the CRA thinks it should collect every year versus what it does collect every year. I view these pieces of legislation to be very complementary. (1735) I think it is important to also recognize that, because the government is in a fiscal position and it is in perpetual deficits, we cannot sustain a situation where the government is continually waiving the debts corporations owe it, whether through non-collection or errors in assessments in the first place. We have to do a better job of collecting the debts corporations owe the government so we can lower the tax burden on Canadians overall.”
“As I mentioned, it must be very frustrating for regular Canadians to understand that while they work hard and pay their taxes on time, some corporations get a special break from the government. Of course, some corporations may have gone bankrupt, or there may be other reasons they cannot pay; however, the fact is that this information is still kept secret from the public. It is in the public interest to understand why this is happening. I would also like to commend some work being done in the Senate. Senator Downe has led some great work in the Senate with respect to greater transparency for the CRA.”
“While the CRA employs tens of thousands of individuals, many of whom work very hard every day, it focuses on everyday Canadians who work hard and pay their taxes on time or in the correct way; if they miss a payment or instalment or underpay by even a few dollars, the CRA will immediately start charging them interest and try to collect that money right away. However, there is a process that happens out of sight of the public, behind closed doors, in which the CRA will tell a corporation that it is no longer pursuing the debt that the corporation owes the government. This practice should change. The bill, if enacted, would require the government, on an annual basis, to provide the names and reasons for which these writeoffs are given to corporations so that the public can see in full light what is happening with their taxpayer dollars.”
“It will not even disclose to Canadians the largest single writeoff every year. It hides behind the issue of privacy and even subsequent ministers have decided to keep that information private, relying on section 241 of the Income Tax Act and privacy legislation. However, I believe it is a matter of public interest which corporations these are and the reasons they receive waivers, writeoffs or forgiveness of the amounts that they owe the Crown; as I said previously, this is effectively taxpayer money.”
“It is one of simple transparency for taxpayers with respect to writeoffs that the government provides in the form of forgiveness or waivers of debts owing by corporations to the government. Of course, it is not the government's money that it is writing off; it is taxpayer money that the government writes off for these individuals. I would like to begin my remarks by setting the frame that a few years ago, the member for Calgary Crowfoot identified that there had been a large writeoff to a corporation around 2020, and he was able to ascertain from the CRA the size of the largest writeoff. I think the answer back then was about $122 million, but we did not know which corporation that was, and we still do not know. Now the CRA provides even less transparency about its writeoff activities.”
“moved that Bill C-230, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (debt forgiveness registry) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C-230. Second reading He said: Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise on behalf of the people of Simcoe North and to advance an issue that has been of great importance to me, which is increasing the level of transparency for taxpayers in Canada. However, before I begin my remarks, I would like to acknowledge my good colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk , who seconded my bill, and the member for Calgary Crowfoot , who followed this issue very closely in previous Parliaments.”
“Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the government is considering lifting the tanker ban to support an east-west oil pipeline. The problem is that some Liberal MPs, and even cabinet ministers, do not support this proposal. Who speaks for the government? Will the minister finally clear it up today whether the government is going to do what Conservatives have called for all along to scrap the emissions cap and lift the tanker ban so that Canadian resources can get to market?”
“Mr. Speaker, we absolutely need to improve the services for Canadians, but I would caution the government when it wants to increase services that do not exist today for Canadians while there are still two-hour waits on hold at the CRA when people call. I am not sure that giving the CRA additional things to do is going to provide the service the Liberals think. The CRA has already been trying to file taxes on behalf of millions of Canadians who do not file taxes through a telefile program. The results of that have been incredibly underwhelming, so I am unclear as to what the Liberals think they are going to achieve by doing this. By the way, do people trust the CRA to do their taxes properly on their behalf? I think it sounds like a bit of a conflict of interest.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I did not hear the intervention from my hon. colleague, and I am not sure of the stat he was referring to. I believe there have been some credible sources suggesting that because certain oil is being mixed from certain jurisdictions in the world, some shipments of oil around the world may contain Russian oil. That is obviously something that would be very concerning if any of that oil ends up on Canadian shores.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are not on a sustainable track, because they have more than doubled the amount we spend on debt service costs. It is only going up, and that is if nothing changes. It was six cents in 2015; it is going to be 13¢ in just a couple of years, and that is if absolutely nothing changes. I do not believe that this is a sustainable path. Even former bank governor David Dodge says we have to be really worried when the government gets over 10%, or 10¢ of every dollar spent. As it relates to China, it is actually the Prime Minister who has to answer to this House as to why, just a few short months ago, he said China represented the greatest security threat to this country and now he seems to be engaging and playing footsie with it under the table.”
“The GST that Canadians pay every day on every purchase they make, whether it is buying a car, items at a grocery store, clothing for some kids or basically anything, that amount of money for GST on every receipt we see does not even cover the interest payments on the national debt. It is for these reasons that Conservatives cannot support the budget. The finance minister now has a new fiscal anchor, and I am willing to bet the fiscal anchor of deficit-to-GDP will be broken, because he is already close to breaking the fiscal anchor he set for himself in the budget two days ago.”
“This means the government is very sensitive to interest rate increases, and the Bank of Canada has warned now that 40% of the purchasers of government debt are actually hedge funds, which rely on buying and selling major government debts from all over the world and trading them immediately. If that system does not continue to work as it is working, we will see yields spike in Canada. That means higher interest rates, and higher interest rates mean higher debt service costs. We are already spending more on servicing the debt than we send to the provinces for health care every year. We are spending more on servicing our debt than the government takes in from the GST every year.”
“That is now projected to more than double to 13¢ of every dollar. That will be about $76 billion of money going to bondholders and bankers instead of paying for social services. Even the IMF, which the government loves to trot out because it loves multilateral institutions, says that for the amount of money a government spends on interest on the debt, there is a corresponding decline in the amount of money that is spent on social services. The government is also borrowing record amounts of money in the bond markets each year. Why does that matter? That matters for two reasons. One is that it always borrows on the short term, which means it has to roll this debt over year after year.”
“Now he does not really seem to talk about that very much. During the campaign, the Prime Minister said that China represented the greatest security threat to Canada, and now he says that China represents a new opportunity for Canada. Which one is it? Is China a security threat, or is it there for integration? The Prime Minister is himself showing that we simply cannot trust what he says, but the proof will be in the pudding. One of my favourite high school teachers, a wonderful man named Mr. Cercone, said that it does not matter how much one makes but how much one spends. The bottom line is that people can be wealthy if they watch their expenditures, but the results of this fiscal plan are absolutely devastating for future generations. We used to spend about six cents of every dollar on interest payments on the national debt.”
“It said that we would see more productivity in electric vehicles, vaccine production facilities and ventilators that never even ended up being built. The Prime Minister is setting himself up to have a serious credibility problem. He supported the carbon tax all along the way and even disagreed with former prime minister Trudeau when they took the carbon tax off home heating in Atlantic Canada. It did not matter, anyway. He ended up cancelling the carbon tax just a few months later. Then, he called it “divisive” and said it made life more unaffordable when, before, the narrative about the carbon tax was that we were all better off having it, at the end of the month. (1315) The Prime Minister wrote a book on climate change, saying that every decision in government had to be viewed through the climate prism.”
“The superdeduction they are hanging their hat on is only about a couple of hundred million dollars more a year of stimulus than what is already there. They should have adopted the Conservative idea, which was to provide capital gains relief for Canadians or Canadian businesses when they sell an asset, if they reinvest that asset in Canada. Even the government’s very overhyped GST cut for first-time homebuyers is only going to help a couple of thousand home purchasers a year. It could have adopted the Conservative idea, which was to cut the GST off all homes built in the year. This would help a far greater number of people and promote homebuilding in this country. Let us remember that the government said it was going to get a lot of productive investments through SDTC and the green energy revolution.”
“The luxury tax is gone. The underused housing tax is gone. The capital gains tax is gone. The Liberals have flipped completely on stablecoins and bitcoin in this budget. Before, they made that a political football and put us behind the eight ball. When the leader of the official opposition said that Canada should be the fintech capital of the world, the government made it a political issue and instead set fintech innovation back in this country. Now, it is saying it wants to be part of the fintech revolution. It is now saying it might get rid of the emissions cap. Of course, now it is cancelling what it calls the “divisive” carbon tax. I am sorry, but the government cannot get a medal just for reversing the damage it has done. All this talk in the budget is about economic activity that might not even occur.”
“This basically sums up the response to the budget If we are wondering how the last 10 years have gone, we only have to look at the budget itself. The government writes in its own budget, on page 53, “If Canada’s productivity growth had matched the U.S. from 2017 to 2023, the median income of a family with one child would be nearly $11,000 higher.” This is in the government's own publication. It is an absolutely damning account of how things have been under the Liberal government. I am shocked this made it to print and that the Liberals would admit how badly it has been going for the government. The last 10 years have been difficult. We are trying to get over the hangover of former prime minister Trudeau. This budget completes a number of reversals of former prime minister Trudeau's legacy. The digital services tax is gone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Old habits die hard. The headline says, “Budget shows [the Prime Minister ] doesn’t know how tough it is out there on Main Street”. Another headline reads, “The Liberals' growing deficit of trust”. Another one says that, after all the hype, the Prime Minister’s “first budget fails to meet the moment”. Another says, “Once again, [the Prime Minister] doesn’t quite live up to the hype”, followed by, “When the big day came, it wasn’t quite as advertised”. Reuters writes that the Prime Minister’s “first budget falls short on vow to transform Canadian economy”. Perhaps the most devastating is by Mr. Don Drummond, who was in the Chrétien-era finance department. He co-wrote, “A ‘generational budget’ that does little but set federal spending adrift”.”
“I apologize to our wonderful friends in interpretation. If it continues to be an issue, please let me know. Let us get right into it. It must be really difficult to be a Liberal member of Parliament today, because here are the headlines following the budget, which is how we measure how the budget is being taken: “Budget shows Carney doesn’t know how tough it is out there on Main Street”. Another—”
“Mr. Speaker, the difference is that every Liberal finance minister seems to keep breaking their fiscal promises. They said that the deficits would be low and temporary, but they were long and very large. They said the deficit would be capped. They said the debt-to-GDP ratio would continue going down. The ratio went up, and the deficits blew through the cap. Now, we have a new finance minister with a new, weaker fiscal anchor. Will the finance minister confirm that this anchor is weaker? How long will it be before he breaks his promise too?”
“Mr. Speaker, in 2015, six cents of every dollar was used to pay interest on the national debt. Yesterday's budget confirms that that number will double to more than 13¢ of every dollar, which is almost $76 billion going to bankers and bond holders to pay interest on the national debt. That is even more than the government will receive from taxing and GST. When the finance minister says that he is making generational investments, is he just saddling the next generation with his unaffordable budget?”