Jacques Gourde
Lévis—Lotbinière, Quebec · Conservative · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, really, this Prime Minister is nothing but an illusion. A banker is supposed to be good with numbers, yet here is the Prime Minister's track record: every family will be spending an extra $1,000 on groceries in 2026, business capital investment has fallen for five consecutive quarters, and Canada has the second-highest unempl…”
“Mr. Speaker, delays in the delivery of support ships for the Canadian Navy have been growing longer for years. Meanwhile, the Liberals are threatening to end the lease agreement for the MV Asterix , which is in perfect condition. Does the Liberal government intend to renew the lease or purchase the MV Asterix ?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Alto train is not a gift. It places a perpetual burden on the backs of future generations. Yesterday, the Minister of Transport opened the door to the possibility of cost overruns, so the minister is prepared for it to cost far more than $90 billion and far exceed its budget.”
“Mr. Speaker, if the minister believes that this project is sound, he should go and meet with farmers himself to explain the expropriations. Experts are unanimous: This ideologically motivated project is completely irresponsible when it comes to our public finances. There is no evidence that it will be cost-effective.”
“Mr. Speaker, hundreds of people gathered on Parliament Hill today to make their voices heard about the Alto train, which is threatening the survival of our communities. These people included many farmers facing the prospect of not being able to cross their land because of the Liberal government's threat to split it in two.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to give my esteemed colleague the opportunity to tell me how people in Mirabel are feeling. The government told them that a high-speed rail project is going to cut right through their farmland. It did not offer much in the way of explanation.”
The complete record
Every one of 132 lines we hold for Jacques Gourde, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 3.
“However, after all that effort, we were able to enjoy the crops and forages that the land provided. Taking acreage away from a farm and breaking up access to fields is hard for people to accept, especially when it is done without consultation. That is the worst insult to rightful property owners. Expropriation can feel worse than theft. It can feel like betrayal, like the government betraying its citizens and what they hold most dear. The Mirabel expropriations are the Crown's greatest affront to the francophone Quebec nation, almost on par with the deportation of the Acadians. I have memories from my youth of the Mirabel expropriations. Thousands of families, entire families, including grandparents, children, grandchildren, were evicted from their homes by police at the behest of the federal Liberal government.”
“At three lots per farm, this could potentially affect 650 farms or 1,000 farming families. That is a lot of farms considering how many remain in Quebec. There is a good chance that this project will undermine the profitability of these farms, whose acreage value continues to grow. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my father and mother, Armand and Rita, who were among the last pioneers to cultivate their own land after clearing it themselves. (1125) I saw my father clearing our land when I was young, and I helped him cultivate it. It required a lot of physical labour. I spent my youth working on my land, picking rocks, building fences; I built them and I even took them down. Imagine what it is like to pick rocks all summer long, in 36-degree heat, to get a few more acres of cropland.”
“That is another easement that farmers accept for the good of society. If they agree, we can cross their land. However, it is more difficult when part of the surface area needs to be taken away. Those are precious hectares and acres that divide the land in two or even three, depending on the provisions of the current land titles. Do we have any idea how many families will actually be affected by the project being presented by the Liberal government? The land is divided on each side of the St. Lawrence River, perpendicular to it, three arpents wide by thirty arpents long, which is approximately 170 metres wide by 1,700 metres long. That is about six lots per kilometre. According to my calculations, we are talking about 1,950 different lots between Quebec City and the Ontario border.”
“This is not something to be taken lightly. We learned early on in school that, sooner or later, land came into play in every war throughout history. Why proceed arbitrarily? We understand that there are major projects to be completed in 2026 and that they will require large areas of land. There is no getting around that. However, in order for this to work, the government needs to seek advice from farmers, who may come up with solutions themselves. They may have some clever suggestions. They will suggest routes that may interfere less with their farming operations. We should not just be consulting farmers about their land; we should be working with them. All things considered, we must be very careful. It is certainly possible to lay pipelines on land by negotiating easement agreements. It is also possible to place power lines on land.”
“Throughout history, people valued owning land and farming it above all else. That makes sense. To feed ourselves properly, we have to harvest the fruits of the earth, which give us grain, fodder and vegetables, which then provide us with meat and consumer goods essential to our survival. These lands were not created by providence. We have what we see today because of the hard work of generations of farmers. If we drive along Highway 132 or Highway 138, we can see the beautiful farms that are there today. They are there because of the hard work of nine, 10 or 11 generations of farmers who cleared every metre of land by the sweat of their brow in order to survive. This land did not just ensure their survival, but the survival of an entire people, the Quebec nation. There is no asset in the world as precious as this one.”
“Mr. Speaker, we do not inherit the earth from our parents. We borrow it from our children. It seems so easy for major project proponents to look at a map and draw a line. However, when that line becomes a route and valuable farmland has to be acquired for a project, we often forget where that land came from and who owns it. If a person gets their car stolen, they are not going to be in a good mood and they might even get really angry about it, but, at the end of the day, they can buy an identical car with the insurance money. However, when a person's land is stolen, destroyed or divided, it is impossible to repair it. Many countries were colonized by promising people land. Our ancestors left France, England and various other countries to come here and live the Canadian dream. They came to clear and farm large, fertile expanses of land.”
“Mr. Speaker, since my colleague brought up the issue of high-speed rail, which strays a bit from the topic of the Bloc Québécois motion, I would like to know how many farm families will be affected between Quebec City, Toronto and Windsor. How much farmland will be built on as part of this project?”
“Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the Minister of Finance promised to stabilize food prices. Since then, the price of lettuce has gone up 40%, the price of coffee has gone up 34% and the price of beef has gone up 27%. Instead of lowering costs, the Liberals are rolling out another temporary rebate as a band-aid solution. Will the Liberals finally turn things around and support our Conservative motion, which eliminates the industrial carbon tax, eliminates the fuel standards tax and strengthens competition in the grocery sector?”
“Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, we have seen that there is nothing logical about the way the Liberal government runs our country. There are too many taxes, and the measure that the government has put in place will cost approximately $9 billion. However, unfortunately, we will have to add to that $1.4 billion in recurring interest for, perhaps, the next 100 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that Conservatives have always supported Canadians who face food insecurity. Unfortunately, today, 30% of Canadians need to use this type of program, whereas only 3% of Canadians needed to do so in 2015. The numbers have been multiplied by a factor of 10. That is the problem. It is the result of 10 years of Liberal government. Canadians are hungry and, regrettably, this needs to be done.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. Yes, GST is collected on some food and processed items, especially in grocery stores. Anytime a service is required for a product, it is taxed. That tax should be cut immediately. That would have been much simpler than managing a program that will also cost a lot of money to administer.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us think about what it takes to put food on the table after what the Liberal government has done over the past 10 years. Some 12 million Canadians will receive the grocery benefit. Have Canadians become so poor that 30% of the population needs this benefit? Why have the Liberals kept taxes so high? They need to lower taxes. They need to leave Canadian taxpayers' money in their pockets. That way, Canadians can choose what they want while feeling confident about the future.”
“Finally, it includes the food packaging tax, which will cost Canadians $1.3 billion. This plan would also boost competition in Canada's overly concentrated grocery sector. In conclusion, the Liberal government is papering over the cracks by going into excessive debt, which is ultimately going to cause our society to lose a lot of money. The astronomical deficit jeopardizes our ability to provide high-quality services to Canadians. In any event, at our convention, I saw that there is hope. A Conservative government gives all Canadians, especially young people, hope for an affordable life, for the possibility of home ownership, for lower taxes and for a safer country where life is good.”
“This will contribute to inflation. The only winners here are the credit card companies. Nevertheless, Conservatives will support any measure to boost people's purchasing power in these challenging times. I urge the other parties to support our opposition motion on this subject, which is on the Order Paper now and will be debated tomorrow. The motion calls on the government to immediately introduce a food affordability plan that removes the Liberals' hidden taxes on food. This includes the industrial carbon tax on farm equipment, fertilizer and food processors that drives up the costs of producing food, which are then passed on to consumers. It also includes the fuel standards tax, which is 7¢ a litre and is rising to 17¢ a litre, on farmers, truckers and those who bring us our food.”
“Daigle lamented the disappearance of Canada's middle class and said that the Canada benefit only helps the low-income class, while the middle class continues to rack up credit card debt. She wanted to know why there are no tax cuts that apply to all Canadians, since inflation is out of control, despite claims that wages are going up. She also said that wages in Canada have not kept pace with inflation. Lastly, Mr. Robichaud said that all the Liberals are good at is buying votes with tons of little cheques. It is bad when Canadians are forced to put groceries on their credit cards, but it is twice as bad when the government hands out money for Canadians to put food on the table using their credit cards. This measure will directly add to Canada's debt. It will add nearly $1.4 billion in interest over five years.”
“Here are some comments I have received from concerned Quebeckers. Mr. Whissel said that the government should just lower taxes instead of coming up with a bunch of new programs that will ultimately help no one. Mr. Garceau said that when a country gets to a point where it has to send cheques to its citizens just so they can afford to eat, yet it does nothing to address the taxes it forces them to pay, there is a problem. Mr. Spallanzani had questions about the Canada groceries benefit and was wondering what will come next. He wondered whether the next Canada benefit will be for electricity. He added that this measure that is supposed to help Canadians sounded like a communist idea. Ms.”
“Imagine a smaller, more efficient government and freer people who are able to invest, save and plan for the future. (1345) However, Bill C‑19 is the very definition of an idea that only looks good on paper. It perfectly illustrates the fundamental difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives. Liberals tax, tax, tax people from coast to coast to coast and then redistribute some of that money through complex, costly and ineffective programs. The Conservatives, on the other hand, understand that Canadians are in the best position to make informed decisions based on their needs. Far from giving Canadians hope for better days ahead, Bill C‑19 only confirms that the Liberals have failed. Canadians do not want temporary solutions. They do not want crumbs. They want a country where it pays to work again.”
“It is also a society that encourages individual initiative, personal responsibility and an entrepreneurial spirit. These are important qualities in any wealthy, free and productive society. We have just returned from our national convention in Calgary. I was struck by something very simple, but very revealing: the abundance of products and the relatively low prices of consumer goods. That is no coincidence. Alberta has low income tax and no provincial sales tax, so it shows that it is possible to have a thriving economy that is attractive to both families and businesses. This model is based on a simple idea: Trust people and do not tax them excessively. Imagine for a moment what Canada could achieve if the federal government adopted the same approach.”
“In the face of that reality, Bill C‑19 is proposing to keep up the Liberal momentum: more programs, more redistribution and more dependence on government without tackling the root of the problem. Conservatives are proposing a fundamentally different approach. We believe that taxes that punish work, effort and productivity must be cut to reduce the cost of living at the source instead of papering over the cracks with temporary measures. We believe Canadians are truly free when their income allows them to make their own choices and they do not have to wait for a cheque from the government to make ends meet. We believe economic freedom is part and parcel of human dignity. A society where people can keep more of what they earn is a stronger and more resilient society.”
“We might be inclined to think there is always someone worse off than we are, but unfortunately, that is not the case. Food prices in Canada are rising twice as fast as in the U.S. Food inflation is at 6.2%, the worst in all of the G7. These data should set off alarm bells for all members of Parliament, regardless of political stripe, because there is a very concrete human reality behind these numbers. This poor record is directly reflected in the drastic increase in food bank use. Food banks are now receiving an average of two million visits every single month across the country from working Canadians, seniors who paid premiums all their lives, students, and single-parent families. This is not the hallmark of a prosperous country, but the result of a government that has lost control over the cost of living.”
“At the time, Canada was known for its strong middle class, the relative affordability of essential goods and the basic idea that someone who was working could provide for their family sufficiently. However, that is not the case today. According to data from the Consumer Price Index published by Statistics Canada in its 2026 report, it now costs $17,600 a year to feed a family of four in Canada. This is $1,000 more than last year, at a time when wages are not keeping pace and Canadians are watching their savings dwindle. This is not an abstract figure. This means hard choices for parents. It means unpaid bills. It means hard-working families being asked to make sacrifices even though they are not getting their money's worth because of hidden Liberal taxes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-19 , which is a striking and disturbing illustration of how far Canada has fallen over the past 10 years under the Liberals. This bill is not just another piece of legislation. It is indicative of a much deeper problem, specifically how the Liberal economic vision has failed and how it has increased the tax burden on Canadians, weakened their purchasing power and made daily life increasingly difficult for millions of families. Imagine if, 10 years ago, someone had stood up in the House of Commons and said that, one day, the federal government would have to create a benefit to ensure that Canadians could put food on the table. Most of us would have thought that was an exaggeration or nonsense.”
“Mr. Speaker, two-thirds of Quebeckers are losing sleep at night because of the Liberals' inflationary taxes. It costs an average of $17,600 per year to feed a family of four. That is $1,000 more than at this time last year. This is the worst record in the G7, but the good news is that the Conservatives are ready to co-operate on any initiative that will remedy this situation. Will this government immediately introduce a bill to eliminate inflationary Liberal taxes, increase competition among grocery chains and reduce the paperwork and regulations imposed on farmers?”
“Mr. Speaker, votes cannot be bought. They must be earned. The latest consumer price index data shows that food inflation has risen by 6.2%, making Canada the food inflation capital of the G7. The Prime Minister can blame the rest of the world, but this is a problem created right here at home by the high Liberal taxes imposed on our farmers. Will the government agree to immediately introduce legislation that eliminates hidden taxes on food?”
“Mr. Speaker, food is expensive in Canada. It is more expensive than anywhere else. There is not another G7 country where food costs more than in Canada. Ground beef is unaffordable: it is 17% more expensive. Apples have gone up by 10%, lettuce by 13%. Oranges have gone up by 15% and ground coffee by 42%. Is the Liberal government in trouble? Its credibility is the only thing that is going down.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reality on the ground is that food prices have skyrocketed. This week, Ms. Ouellet wrote to me that her grocery bill is higher than her mortgage payment. Ms. Vallée told me that she no longer eats meat so that she can stay within her budget. Mr. Hardy has noticed that people are regularly choosing pop and chips as a meal so they can pay their rent at the end of the month. Can the Prime Minister come down from his ivory tower and finally acknowledge the reality that Canadian families are facing?”
“Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are struggling to put food on the table, this Liberal Prime Minister spent $736,000 of taxpayer money to travel to Egypt, a last-minute trip, which tripled the cost. The Prime Minister's responsibilities come at the expense of taxpayers, while next year Canadians will pay $1,000 more for food. Can the Liberals stop their inflationary spending and get rid of hidden taxes on food so that Canadians can finally eat their fill?”
“Mr. Speaker, 36% of Quebeckers experience some form of food insecurity. Three million requests for food assistance are made every month in Quebec. We now have a Prime Minister who spends his time travelling instead of acknowledging that 20% of Canadians have to line up at food banks. That is Canada after 10 years under a Liberal government. It is unprecedented. Quebeckers are going hungry, and groceries will cost $1,000 more in 2026. Why does the Prime Minister care more about the value of his stocks than he does about the suffering of Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister told Canadians to judge him on the price of groceries, and we now live in a country where 20% of the population depends on food banks to put food on the table. We now live in a country where groceries for a family of four is going to cost $1,000 more in 2026. We now live in a country where the price of beef, pork and chicken are all going up at the same time. The country is Liberal Canada, where the cost of groceries has more than doubled since 2015. When will the Liberals stop their inflationary spending so that Canadians can finally get enough to eat?”
“Mr. Speaker, during this magical festive season, I want to wish my dear constituents in Lévis—Lotbinière good health, peace and happiness. May these times of celebration give them the opportunity to share precious moments with their loved ones and to celebrate what unites us all as a community. I also want to sincerely thank them for their trust and loyalty over the past 20 years. Their commitment, ideas, and support are the driving force that enables us to move forward together and build an even more dynamic, supportive, and prosperous community. In 2026, I will have the privilege of continuing this work alongside them with the same determination, representing their interests with diligence, respect, and transparency. May the new year bring them success, joy and serenity. Merry Christmas and happy holidays.”
“Mr. Speaker, here are some more examples. The Prime Minister is prioritizing funding for artificial intelligence, and so is Brookfield. The Prime Minister is prioritizing funding for clean energy, and so is Brookfield. Last week, we learned that the Liberals have earmarked 500 million taxpayer dollars for the European Space Agency. Guess who owns 50% of the campus? Yes, it is Brookfield. Why is the Prime Minister sending our jobs abroad and our money into space, and why is he putting his own financial interests ahead of the interests of all Canadians?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is yet another scandal. In the federal budget, the Liberal government prioritizes funding for the construction of modular housing, as does Brookfield. The Prime Minister prioritizes funding for nuclear energy, as does Brookfield. The Prime Minister prioritizes funding for rail transportation, as does Brookfield. The Prime Minister prioritizes funding for data storage, as does Brookfield. Why is the Prime Minister sacrificing our national interest for his own personal gain?”
“Nevertheless, he remains the same man we have come to know and respect, the man we enjoy spending time with and whose advice is so important to us younger members. In closing, Canada's history will forever be marked by the proud dean from the Quebec nation, a worthy representative of our democracy.”
“He simply wants to be the kind of member who listens to his constituents. He tries to help them using his own secret formula. I remember bits of advice he gave me, and I listened and put them into practice. He told me to stay close to my constituents. He said that votes are not won in Ottawa; they are won by taking care of our constituents. I can confirm that this is excellent advice. Our dean proves that in life, as in politics, one must have a goal. His goal was to be an MP who was close to his constituents. He treats everyone with the importance they deserve, and it pays off. He has earned his record and it is to his credit. He will leave a mark on the history of this place. He has witnessed the progression from typewriters to smart phones and now the age of artificial intelligence.”
“Mr. Speaker, today we are marking a feat of longevity unprecedented in Canadian political life. On September 4, 1984, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak won his first of many elections, the culmination of which would earn him the title of dean with the longest uninterrupted career in the House of Commons. Through all these years, he has remained an endearing individual who, against all odds, managed to weather every storm along the way. We are all witnessing a historic moment for our democracy. Few manage to achieve such a loyal connection to their constituents. For our dean, this achievement did not happen by accident or by luck. What drives our dean's work is a passion to serve his constituents to the very best of his ability every day. He is not after glory or titles.”
“Mr. Speaker, food prices have increased almost 40% faster in Canada than in the United States. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who the Liberals want to fire in the coming days, hidden taxes will drive up the cost of gas by as much as 17¢ a litre. The Liberals had an opportunity to lower the cost of food for Canadian households. Why is the Prime Minister maintaining a hidden 17¢-a-litre tax on fuel that only makes food more expensive?”
“Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is the most costly in Canadian history. Every dollar spent by the Prime Minister comes straight out of Canadians' pockets. The government allowed the National Research Council of Canada to spend more than $60,000 in public money on patio furniture. Meanwhile, people are struggling to put food on the table. Everyone likes to enjoy the sunshine, but this is not something the government should be doing on the taxpayers' dime. When will this Liberal government stop throwing money around?”
“Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the government refused to increase their pension. The government has left our country in a sorry financial state, and the entire community, all Canadians, will have to pay for that.”
“Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to respond to my colleague. I will have the good fortune of welcoming my eighth grandchild in April. Babies often cry when they come into the world, and there will be a good reason for this one to cry: He will owe the federal government $35,000 from the moment he is born. That is why I voted against the budget.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting question, but I have my doubts about what the Minister of Finance was able to choose in his own budget. Put simply, I am not even sure that he wrote the budget himself. However, he is a good communicator, I will give him that. He repeats the Prime Minister 's Office's messaging.”
“Madam Speaker, I will go a step further. I just came from a meeting of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee just heard from Brookfield officials, who actually said in committee that the Prime Minister had deferred shares, meaning that he had a stock certificate in his back pocket when he left Brookfield, one for which he will receive payment in 10 years. When the government invests in companies that Brookfield funds, we can only imagine what the Prime Minister will be able to collect.”
“Madam Speaker, I would just like to remind my colleague that, according to an international convention, budgets must include all expenditures for every single year. When a government spends money, it must include those expenditures in the budget. If Canada changes the rules, we are changing the whole way things are done internationally. As a result, our budget will no longer have any credibility and it will no longer be considered by rating agencies. Members can guess what will happen after that.”
“Instead, once again, it chose the easy way out: spend, borrow, and hope no one would look at the numbers too closely. (1340) We will keep a close eye on those figures. The Conservatives will continue to stand up for the interests of Canadian families, to speak out against questionable practices and to work for an affordable budget for an affordable life, because Canadians deserve better and because the country's future depends on it.”
“I would call this overlapping interests between a powerful global investment fund and a government whose Prime Minister worked for this fund just a few days before getting into politics. The fact that the Prime Minister was well familiar with Brookfield's orientation is an open secret that becomes apparent upon going through the budget page by page and seeing the overlapping areas. This budget is neither responsible, nor transparent, nor is it credible. It conceals expenditure and makes excuses. It saddles future generations with debt. It threatens Canada's economic stability. It shows contempt for Canadian families which have to balance their budget at the end of the month. The government could have done better. It ought to have done better.”
“On that note, I would like to point to the convergence of the budget's orientations with Brookfield's own, a company that manages assets of over $1 trillion. Like the government, this firm has their hands just about everywhere. The Prime Minister was still with Brookfield just before he threw his hat into the Liberal leadership race back in January, seeing as he resigned from the company on January 16. Brookfield has investment projects in minerals, petroleum, housing, the railway sector, carbon capture, clean energy, the nuclear industry, data storage, and artificial intelligence. All these projects have restrictions. In this budget, we can see that the government wants to loosen these restrictions. Some would say that this is a coincidence.”
“We know that a country cannot spend more than it makes indefinitely. We know that today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes. We know that prosperity cannot be decreed: It is built through work, innovation, private investment, and a stable and predictable economic environment. Our proposals make sense, they are realistic, and they respect taxpayers. I cannot help but conclude by reminding members about the Prime Minister's world tour, which has not brought down any of the tariffs imposed by our trading partners. While the Prime Minister is gallivanting around the world, we may well wonder whether he is defending the interests of small and medium-sized Canadian businesses or the interests of Brookfield.”
“We are dealing with a Prime Minister who calls himself an economist, but he is driving this country into a wall. The Prime Minister likes to talk about the fact that he is a former governor of the Bank of Canada, but his time there does not appear to have had a long-standing impact on his ability to manage public finances. He is now acting more like the prime minister of a bankrupt Canada than a responsible head of government. This may not be an enviable title, but unfortunately, that is the title he is in the process of acquiring. Conservatives have a clear approach: we have to live within Canada's means, protect taxpayers' money, cut wasteful spending, promote actual economic growth, put an end to chronic deficits, and most importantly, put the fiscal house back in order.”
“A loss of international credibility has tangible consequences, including higher borrowing costs for the government, families facing higher rates, less flexibility for investing in actual needs, and lower investor confidence. All these things will chip away at Canada's economic resilience. What are families going through while the Liberals are spending recklessly? Their grocery prices are constantly on the increase, rents and mortgages are skyrocketing, day-to-day expenses are exceeding their income, and they are feeling more tax pressure year in, year out. This budget has not addressed these concerns. It does not offer any plan to make life affordable. It is not tackling inflation. It does not promote prudent fiscal management. In fact, it is adding more fuel to the fire.”
“This difference clearly shows that the government is attempting to hide day-to-day operating costs beneath a veneer of investment. In reality, this is simply additional spending on the government credit card that will drive up the deficit. (1335) Let us also talk about how others are looking at our situation. Credit rating agencies are scrutinizing our finances. They are looking at our budget trends, our fiscal credibility, and our ability to bring spending under control. They are concerned about what they have observed in recent years, just as much as economists and financial institutions in the country are concerned. Canada was once a beacon of fiscal discipline. It had an enviable reputation for its capacity to balance budgets, rein in debt, and provide a stable and predictable financial environment. This reputation is now fading.”
“He said this because the definition chosen by the Liberals is subjective, malleable and overly expansive. The Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Liberals are trying to get rid of in short order, noted that the government categorizes a wide range of expenses, some of which relate to business tax credits, operating subsidies and permanent tax measures, as capital investments. That just does not wash. Even the U.K. model, which served as inspiration for the Prime Minister , does not include such measures. Applying objective criteria, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whom the Liberals hope to fire a few days from now, estimates that the expenses characterized as investments are in some cases overstated by more than $20 billion. That is not a little mistake, that is major manipulation.”