Bill C-15

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) expanding the rollover for small business corporation shares;
(b) expanding the list of expenses recognized under the Disability Supports Deduction;
(c) exempting the Canada Disability Benefit from income;
(d) aligning the taxation of investment income and active business income earned and distributed by controlled foreign affiliates with the rules that currently apply to Canadian-controlled private corporations;
(e) extending the deadline for making certain charitable donations eligible for tax support in the 2024 tax year;
(f) increasing the limit under the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption so that it applies on up to $1.25 million of eligible capital gains, applicable to dispositions that occur on or after June 25, 2024, with indexation of the limit to resume in 2026;
(g) exempting the first $10 million in capital gains on the sale of a business to a worker cooperative and amending the corresponding exemption for sales to an employee ownership trust;
(h) removing the tax-indifferent investor exception to the synthetic equity arrangement anti-avoidance rule;
(i) improving the efficiency of the Home Accessibility Tax Credit;
(j) implementing the Personal Support Workers Tax Credit;
(k) enhancing the SR&ED program by increasing the annual expenditure limit and taxable capital phase-out thresholds for the enhanced 35% SR&ED credit, extending the enhanced credit to eligible Canadian public corporations and restoring the eligibility of SR&ED capital expenditures;
(l) extending the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for individuals who invest in eligible mining flow-through shares for two years to March 31, 2027 at the current rate of 15%;
(m) expanding the eligibility of the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit to bismuth, cesium, chromium, fluorspar, germanium, indium, manganese, molybdenum, niobium, phosphate, tantalum, tin and tungsten;
(n) amending the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses;
(o) extending the full credit rates for the Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage investment tax credit to 2035;
(p) expanding the eligibility for the clean technology investment tax credit to support the generation of electricity and heat from waste biomass;
(q) expanding the eligibility for the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit to investments in eligible polymetallic projects and to additional qualifying materials;
(r) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying corporations and trusts for investments in certain clean electricity property;
(s) amending the alternative minimum tax to exempt certain trusts for the benefit of Indigenous groups;
(t) precluding a corporation from qualifying as a mutual fund corporation where it is controlled by or for the benefit of a corporate group;
(u) extending the period during which agricultural cooperatives can distribute tax-deferred patronage dividends paid in shares to their members until the end of 2030;
(v) narrowing the rules related to reporting by trusts;
(w) providing the Minister of National Revenue with the authority to waive the withholding requirement for payments to certain non-resident service providers;
(x) allowing the sharing of information for the purposes of administering and enforcing the Canada Labour Code as it relates to the misclassification of employees;
(y) reforming Canada’s transfer pricing rules;
(z) reinstating the accelerated investment incentive and immediate expensing for certain qualifying assets;
(z.1) providing an accelerated capital cost allowance of 10% for new eligible purpose-built rental projects;
(z.2) providing immediate expensing for new additions of property in respect of productivity-enhancing assets;
(z.3) introducing a temporary non-refundable tax credit applicable where an individual’s non-refundable tax credit amounts exceed the first income tax bracket threshold; and
(z.4) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
It also makes a related amendment to the Excise Tax Act .
Part 2 repeals the Digital Services Tax Act and the Digital Services Tax Regulations and makes consequential amendments to other legislation.
Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act , the Underused Housing Tax Act , the Select Luxury Items Tax Act and other related texts to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Tax Act and a related text by
(a) clarifying that supplies of osteopathic services rendered by individuals who are not osteopathic physicians are taxable under the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax;
(b) extending the Enhanced (100%) Goods and Services Tax Rental Rebate to qualifying cooperative housing corporations and student residences built by universities, public colleges and school authorities; and
(c) allowing input tax credits for redeemed coupons to be available only for payments made exclusively in the course of commercial activities.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act to end the underused housing tax in respect of 2025 and future calendar years. It also subsequently repeals the Underused Housing Tax Act and the Underused Housing Tax Regulations .
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Select Luxury Items Tax Act to end the luxury tax in respect of subject aircraft and subject vessels. It also makes the Select Luxury Items Tax Regulations to provide greater clarity on the tax treatment of subject items.
Part 4 amends the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to, among other things,
(a) establish an opt-in framework for interested Indigenous governments to levy a value-added sales tax, under their own laws, on fuel, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and vaping products within their reserves or settlement lands; and
(b) make process-type improvements and machinery of government changes to streamline the administration of taxes under that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act and to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act .
Part 5 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 5 enacts the High-Speed Rail Network Act , which establishes a legislative framework to facilitate the implementation of a rail network that allows for the carrying of passengers at high speed between Quebec and Ontario. That Act, among other things,
(a) deems the construction of the railway lines that are to be part of the high-speed rail network to have been approved under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act ;
(b) provides that the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of each segment of the high-speed rail network, and any incidental physical activity, is subject to the Impact Assessment Act ;
(c) permits certain land to be subject to a notice of right of first refusal or a notice of prohibition on work;
(d) amends the expropriation process in relation to the high-speed rail network;
(e) provides that Indigenous knowledge that is provided in confidence in relation to the high-speed rail network is treated as confidential; and
(f) makes certain Parts of the Official Languages Act applicable to certain entities, including those that operate a railway that is part of the high-speed rail network.
The Division also makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to repeal the power to make regulations prescribing rates of postage and the terms and conditions related to the payment of postage and instead provide the Canada Post Corporation with the authority to establish those rates and terms and conditions and provide for exceptions.
Division 3 of Part 5 provides, among other things, that an aggregate amount not exceeding $11.5 billion to fund the operations and activities of Build Canada Homes and an aggregate amount not exceeding $1.515 billion as a contribution of capital to, or to purchase shares in, Canada Lands Company Limited may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act to increase the aggregate amount that the Minister of Finance may pay to the Canada Infrastructure Bank to $45,000,000,000.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Red Tape Reduction Act to, among other things, authorize, subject to certain conditions, ministers to grant temporary exemptions from the application of provisions of certain Acts of Parliament and instruments with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of regulatory regimes to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth in the clean technology or financial technology sector.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Public Service Superannuation Act to, among other things, expand the eligibility for early retirement available to certain contributors employed in operational service to new groups of contributors.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Public Service Superannuation Act to authorize certain contributors to exercise a temporary early retirement option during a period for which a workforce reduction initiative is in effect. It also makes a related amendment to the Income Tax Regulations .
Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Farm Credit Canada Act to, among other things, provide for a review of the provisions and operation of that Act within five years after the day on which the amendment comes into force and every 10 years after that.
Division 9 of Part 5 repeals the Consumer-Driven Banking Act and enacts a new Consumer-Driven Banking Act to ensure that individuals and businesses can safely and securely share their data with the participating entities of their choice. That Act addresses, among other things, accreditation, national security, data sharing, security safeguards, consent, authentication, liability, complaints, administration and enforcement and screen scraping. The Division also makes related amendments to the Access to Information Act , the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1 .
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business.
Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize prudential limits by repealing certain provisions that impose limits on federally regulated financial institutions with respect to debt obligations and borrowing, consumer and commercial loans and investments in real property and equity.
Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to allow for the electronic delivery of certain documents to shareholders, members and policyholders without their consent, while ensuring that they receive paper copies if they request them.
Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to increase the equity threshold related to the public holding requirement from $2 billion to $4 billion and to make changes to other provisions that include that threshold.
Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act , the Insurance Companies Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to, among other things,
(a) clarify the powers of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in respect of the adherence by federally regulated financial institutions to their policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security;
(b) provide the Superintendent of Financial Institutions with powers to issue directions of compliance in respect of unsafe or unsound practices in the conduct of the affairs of those financial institutions; and
(c) provide that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is not prevented from disclosing information to any federal government agency or body for purposes related to the Superintendent’s regulation or supervision of financial institutions.
Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to raise the amount of funds that can be withdrawn immediately from a retail deposit account after the deposit of a cheque or other instrument and to remove the delay for the withdrawal of funds deposited by a cheque or other instrument that is not deposited in person.
Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to, among other things,
(a) prohibit the activation of certain capabilities for a personal deposit account in Canada without the express consent of the natural person in whose name the account is kept;
(b) permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to deactivate certain account capabilities;
(c) permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to adjust certain transaction limits on the account;
(d) require institutions to establish policies and procedures for detecting and preventing consumer-targeted fraud and mitigating its impacts; and
(e) require institutions and the Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to prepare annual reports on consumer-targeted fraud.
Division 17 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act , the Bank Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to support the growth of federal credit unions, including by way of amalgamation or asset acquisition and by permitting them to engage in motor vehicle leasing in certain circumstances.
Division 18 of Part 5 amends the Special Economic Measures Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Minister of Finance must be consulted before an order or regulation identifying certain persons is made under subsection 4(1) of that Act;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations requiring financial institutions to provide to the Minister of Finance information on property that is in their possession or control and that is owned, held or controlled by a person, including a foreign state, identified under that Act and information on profits realized from such property; and
(c) authorize the Minister of Finance to make an order directing a financial institution to pay such profits to the Receiver General.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act .
Division 19 of Part 5 amends the Pension Act to, among other things,
(a) set out in a schedule to that Act the amounts of the basic pension payable during the period beginning on April 1, 1985 and ending on December 31, 2025;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to amend that schedule;
(c) define the term “province” for the purposes of paragraph 75(1)(b) of that Act; and
(d) update certain regulation-making powers.
It also amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to provide that, beginning on January 1, 2027, certain benefits are to be adjusted only on the basis of the Consumer Price Index.
Finally, it amends the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and the Veterans Health Care Regulations to retroactively clarify the meaning of the term “province” with respect to the calculation of the accommodation and meals charge for the recipients of intermediate and long term care.
Division 20 of Part 5 retroactively amends the Veterans Well-being Regulations to specify that the first annual adjustment to certain amounts used in the calculation of the earnings loss benefit is to be prorated to the number of days remaining in the calendar year. It also authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the earnings loss benefit under the Veterans Well-being Act , as it read from time to time before April 1, 2019.
Division 21 of Part 5 amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act , among other things, to specify that claims for awards made under Part II of that Act are to be dealt with and determined by the Minister who administers the Pension Act . It also enacts related provisions.
Division 22 of Part 5 enacts the Canada Development Investment Corporation Act , which continues the Canada Development Investment Corporation and sets out its purpose to assist in the creation and development of businesses, resources, property and industries of Canada by providing advice and support to the Government of Canada and by making investments and managing assets that advance Canada’s economic growth and development. The Division also makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 23 of Part 5 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to require that an organization disclose to another organization an individual’s personal information, at the individual’s request, if both organizations are subject to a data mobility framework.
Division 24 of Part 5 amends the Broadcasting Act to provide that it is to be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the right to privacy of individuals.
Division 25 of Part 5 amends the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act to, among other things, reaffirm that security of the public is a key purpose of that Act, provide that the Minister of Health must establish and update a registry that will replace Schedules 1 to 4, add requirements for persons who carry out activities in relation to high risk human pathogens and toxins, increase the maximum penalties to which a person who commits an offence under that Act is liable and establish an administrative monetary penalty regime for certain contraventions of that Act or its regulations.
Division 26 of Part 5 amends the Customs Tariff to amend the definition “obsolete or surplus goods” to allow for the refund of duties paid in respect of certain goods that are donated to a registered charity.
Division 27 of Part 5 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to authorize the Governor in Council to add articles to the Export Control List and the Import Control List for reasons related to Canada’s economic security interests.
Division 28 of Part 5 amends the Aeronautics Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister of Transport to make interim orders that give effect to international standards, agreements, conventions and arrangements;
(b) extend the effective period of interim orders;
(c) modernize regulation-making powers respecting the development of, and compliance with, systems, processes, procedures, programs, plans and documents in relation to aviation safety and security;
(d) provide that air traffic service providers and certain maintenance organizations may be found vicariously liable for offences or violations;
(e) authorize the electronic service of documents;
(f) prohibit interference with the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system unless authorized by the Minister;
(g) modernize the administrative monetary penalties framework and increase the maximum amounts for penalties and fines; and
(h) establish a regime for the voluntary provision of information related to aviation safety and security and set out limits on the disclosure and use of information provided under that regime.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act and a related amendment to the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1 .
Division 29 of Part 5 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the authority to make interim orders to give effect to international standards or ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations.
Division 30 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of salaries authorized for judges of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and judges of unified family courts in the provinces. It also reduces in a corresponding manner the number of salaries authorized for judges of superior courts in the provinces other than appeal courts.
Division 31 of Part 5 amends the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act to create a Schedule 2 to that Act, allow the Minister of Justice to add territorial bodies to that Schedule and to allow the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada to provide support services and facilities to those bodies.
Division 32 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the establishment of the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada and the transfer of the functions of the Chief Review Officer and review officers to that Tribunal. It also amends the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act to enable the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada to provide the Tribunal with any necessary support services and facilities and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 33 of Part 5 authorizes the taking of various measures with respect to the divestiture and dissolution of all or any part of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act .
Division 34 of Part 5 repeals section 16 of the Government Annuities Improvement Act .
Division 35 of Part 5 repeals sections 195 and 196 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act .
Division 36 of Part 5 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to deny the provision of financial assistance to qualifying students in relation to designated educational institutions outside Canada that are private and for-profit and offer courses at a post-secondary school level. It also amends that Act to empower the Minister of Employment and Social Development to suspend or deny the provision of financial assistance in certain circumstances in order to align with a provincial suspension or denial.
Division 37 of Part 5 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to
(a) clarify that all regulations made under that Act are to be made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance;
(b) clarify that paragraph 36(3.01)(b) of that Act applies to donations that are not charitable donations; and
(c) prohibit the disclosure of reports, or the information contained in them, related to discrepancies in information discovered in the course of verifying the identity of persons having beneficial ownership or control of an entity.
It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations to
(a) clarify that paragraph 138(5)(b) of those Regulations applies to donations that are not charitable donations; and
(b) clarify the application of those Regulations to mortgage administrators, mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders.
Finally, it makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 38 of Part 5 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings.
Division 39 of Part 5 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act , the Canada Cooperatives Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act to provide an additional ground on which the Director appointed under the Act in question may dissolve a corporation or a cooperative, as the case may be, namely, when the Director is notified that it is a “listed entity” as defined in subsection 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code .
Division 40 of Part 5 amends the Building Canada Act to add to the information that must be included in the public registry of national interest projects the extent to which each project can contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.
Division 41 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to set the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of liquefied natural gas at 50 years.
Division 42 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things, remove the mandatory five-year limit for agreements made under subsection 9(5) or 10(3).
Division 43 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to remove the requirement that the substantiation of representations about the environmental benefits of businesses or business activities must be done in accordance with internationally recognized methodology. It also amends that Act to exclude the application of the provision respecting those representations from proceedings before the Competition Tribunal that are initiated by a person other than the Commissioner of Competition.
Division 44 of Part 5 enacts the National School Food Program Act , which sets out the Government of Canada’s vision for the National School Food Program. That Act also sets out the Government of Canada’s commitment to maintaining long-term funding to be provided to the provinces, the territories and Indigenous peoples for the ongoing implementation and maintenance of the Program.
Division 45 of Part 5 enacts the Stablecoin Act , which imposes duties on persons that create stablecoins and make them available for purchase, directly or indirectly, by persons in Canada. That Act sets out the objects of the Bank of Canada in respect of stablecoin and requires the Bank to maintain a public registry of stablecoin issuers. That Act also addresses, among other things, the redemption of stablecoins by issuers, the reserve of assets that issuers must maintain to fulfill their redemption obligations and the policies that they must establish. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to the Access to Information Act , the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Retail Payment Activities Act .

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Minister of Finance and National Revenue]

moved that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the third time and passed.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand before the House to speak to the third reading of the budget. The finance minister has done an extraordinary job of putting forward a blueprint for Canada that would enable us to be more competitive, to provide for prosperity and to protect our sovereignty. These are important steps, so I thank the minister of finance for doing so. These are values that are critically important to all of us. I believe it is a vision shared by all parties and certainly by Canadians.

I came back into politics for a number of reasons. I think many members have as well. It is important for us to provide value in the House and to enable the next generation to be better off than we are, given the circumstances and the opportunities that we have in this place to do something better.

We are at a pivotal moment in our history. Geopolitical challenges are before us. Our largest trading partner is becoming less dependable, which is requiring us to be more forthright, to broaden our reach. The budget speaks to that. These are complex issues, so gimmicks do not work in this case. We need a serious road map. We need some serious engagement by all sides to enable this to succeed and to enable Canada to succeed.

At times, I hear us attacking the independent institutions in our democratic society that make us trusted partners around the world. I hear attacks on the Governor of the Bank of Canada or our securities commissions or our independent judges. We create the laws, but judges enact them, and we need that to be the case. The blame game that we sometimes see in the House can only go so far. We are all accountable here. We are all accountable to our constituents. We are all accountable to our children and to our parents. We in this House are trying to enable our society to care for our elders and to provide every opportunity for our children, which brings us to the budget.

I joined politics after 25 years in the private sector having my own business. I spent 20-plus years in the banking sector, supporting commercial business clients and participating in the capital markets. I enabled mergers and acquisitions and fostered ways for Canada to succeed. In that circumstance, I recognized—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I must interrupt the hon. member to remind members that if they wish to have conversations, they may do so outside the chamber.

The member for Mississauga—Lakeshore.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I know the members are very interested in what is happening. It is creating discussion, and that is important.

After 25 years in the private sector, I wanted to give back to a society that enabled us to have opportunity. Many of us are products of immigration. My parents came in 1953 from a postwar fascist regime in Europe, seeking that opportunity to continue to prosper, to allow us that engagement and recognize that we all play an essential role in the well-being of Canada.

My first priority in politics and government is to promote economic growth, to promote economic stability and to enable opportunity and prosperity. That is essential to who we are and what we do in the House. The budget speaks to that in a large way.

The second priority is to be able to sustain social programs. We cannot do that without a strong economic force, and those programs are essential to help those less fortunate, to ensure that we have education and health care and that we have the backstop for those who are most in need. My community in Mississauga—Lakeshore cares about our economic prosperity and our ability to have jobs but also about ensuring that no one is left behind and that we support our elders as they move on to retirement.

Another priority has been unity. Spending the years I did in the private sector, I recognized some of the challenges between provinces. Tearing down those barriers and enabling us to foster greater competitiveness as a country means we have to have stronger unity as a country between provinces. I tried at one point to foster a national co-operative securities regulator across all provinces, and I was able to get eight provinces to sign on. That enabled us to have a shared vision, one where we could attract more foreign direct investment at a lower cost to them, and people of all political stripes understood that.

National unity is essential for Canada's prosperity. We can have our differences, but we recognize that when we work in tandem and try to help one another, we all succeed in our federation. At that time, I was representing the Province of Ontario, and we in that provincial government were going through some challenges with the 2008 downturn and the financial crisis. We still picked up, and we still contributed more to the rest of the federation than we brought in, because we understood that Canada is one, notwithstanding all the provincial differences. I strongly support co-operation and success in Quebec, success in British Columbia, success in Alberta and success in all of our provinces, because that way we all succeed.

Last, a fourth priority in this engagement, as to why I became a member and sought elected office, is to ensure that Canada stands proudly on the world stage. We have a lot to be proud of. Some may say we are reliant on major powers, and others may say Canada is a trusted partner and one that actually provides engagement regarding peace and the rule of law. That stands Canada apart. It is why we are a major force in NATO. It is why we continue to be a major force in the United Nations. It is why we must continue to stand tall and stand proud, to enable the rule of international law to prevail.

Canada is sought after because of our sense of peace, our sense of democracy and our sense of rule of law. We are not here to dictate what others should do but to, by our own example, encourage other parts of the world to behave appropriately, with respect. The budget speaks to respect: respect of our businesses, respect of our citizens and respect of those around the world. Yes, we have global challenges, and Canada is facing them.

In Mississauga—Lakeshore, in my community where I grew up, people care about the community. They care about education, jobs and security. They do not care about who is responsible. They just care about the results. They do not care about us deflecting blame to others. They care about us working together to ensure that greater security is had at home, that protection measures are there for them, and that prosperity and opportunity are provided for them as we go forward. The budget speaks to their priorities, investing to build more homes and protecting our society through a number of bills beyond our budget, on crime and bail. In the budget, there is already an allotment for greater border security, greater RCMP and greater measures of protection to ensure that Canada remains safe.

More importantly, this budget is about empowering Canadians, giving them skills and job opportunities and providing a number of aspects within industry, with our trade routes and our negotiations abroad, to enable Canada and Canadians to do even more. The budget not only charts a course for Canada, but it charts a course for individuals to succeed.

There are a lot of discussions around generational investments in the budget to build major infrastructure. The major projects being proposed would unleash the great potential that Canada has. It is why so many are seeking to invest in Canada and so many are trying to control those investments. We need to foster and protect our indigenous communities and protect Canadians. We must protect our borders, and we must empower Canadians by also providing better measures of affordability.

Again, the budget would provide tax cuts for low-income Canadians, incentives to produce more housing, and support within the mix so people can afford those groceries that have been costed up by inflation, which has been under control, but we need to do better in the interim. We must compete, and the budget talks about how we can compete and prosper, how we can build to enable that support and that prosperity, but it also says we must be more responsible and eliminate some wasteful spending. There are measures within the budget to empower us to invest but also to be mindful of where we spend. That is clear in the budget and the process by which we are proceeding without impeding those social programs that are so critical to all Canadians.

Attracting investment is a third issue in the budget that I want to touch upon. Canada is one of the strongest in the G7. We are unleashing over $1 trillion over the next five years through our major projects, our critical minerals sovereign fund, roads and bridges, our communities strong fund and Build Canada Homes. The defence industrial strategy is yet another piece of an economic imperative as well as a sovereign imperative.

The Major Projects Office will trigger $150 billion in total capital investment, which is critical. Many Canadians want to see Canada invest in itself. It is not just about taking minerals out of our ground. It is about processing and refining those minerals for value-added use. These things are essential as we proceed.

Let us talk about the fiscal impacts in the budget. We are in the midst of many trade agreements. We have witnessed a record number of measures already being taken by the Prime Minister, the trade commissioner and our trade minister. The world is looking to work with Canada.

Canada is the only country that has trade agreements with all G7 countries That says something about how we are viewed by other parts of the world. Canada is also sought after because we are an energy superpower, one that has a sufficient amount of oil and natural gas that has yet to be taken to its full potential. We recognize that, but we also recognize the clean energy grid that is also important in our ability to trade and to enable some of our industry to be even more competitive in the long term. Those measures are taken into account.

Our fiscal capacity is strong. We have a strong credit rating. We have very low net debt to GDP among others. Interest rates have come down, and we have locked in our bonds and yields for the long term to enable us to take advantage of the low rates today.

The skills, training and career ability of our people are also essential. This attracts people to Canada, knowing that we have the talent pool to enable manufacturing and advanced manufacturing innovation to succeed. Canada is nurturing that. We are an incubator as well as a builder. Those things must be maintained within Canada. We know that companies all too often will go after larger markets to enable them to succeed. We can do more to help them succeed here at home by having alternative trade routes across other parts of the world.

We have talked about affordability, the grocery benefit, and having the ability to ensure that people who are less able today would be able to reduce their taxes and have a way to foster greater engagement if they have found it difficult, certainly after the COVID years. We all recognize that. We talk about that, but Canada, by enabling greater prosperity and job creation, is also able to provide greater support and opportunity for people who have had a difficult time.

However, that measure is one of global effect, as colleagues know. The United States is going through the same thing, as well as other parts of Europe and other parts of the world. Canada is one of the few countries that has stood out in providing help and supports directly to the people most in need. We also supported industry, providing stimulus and other measures to help it be more competitive through the industrial strategy.

We have a housing strategy to try to foster and create more affordable homes, reduce homelessness and provide greater social well-being. The acceleration of some of those housing projects through our housing strategy will enable that to take place. Many are now breaking ground.

Public safety, as I talked about earlier, is an essential part within this budget. So many border security officers have now been hired For the RCMP, the funding of those essential supports are part of this budget.

Also considered as a part of this budget is fraud and financial crime, which affects so many and is hard to engage. Within this budget, as we go forward, we are engaged in those protection measures.

Our defence strategy recently came out, funded by the opportunities within this budget. It will help us bolster Canadian-made supports in aerospace, ammunitions and critical minerals. Our defence industrial strategy is aligned also with NATO and Europe, our allies, because we need to ensure that we are able to broaden our reach and our markets so we can have those measures invested here in Canada to enable Canadians to invest and also to prosper within those skills and manufacturing sites.

The key to this is our defence investment agency to foster and partner with the manufacturing and production facilities at home. The security action plan with Europe, and our strategic investments as we align ourselves across this country to support the industry, will help support and guarantee northern sovereignty, as well as our overall sovereignty in Canada and the Arctic, and provide an international boost for new careers across Canada.

Our focus is on Arctic and northern defence, technology and innovation, and, more importantly, on maintaining and securing a strong Canadian supply chain.

We are talking about a budget that encompasses housing abilities, our defence ability, our industrial major projects ability, the enablement of energy, the opportunity to maximize our critical minerals, and, above all, to be a trusted partner in the engagement with other parts of the world. Buy Canadian is a big part of this budget. We recognize that is a key factor for Canadians, our citizens, to succeed. It is a positive vision, one with confidence and discipline and one that abides by the rule of law.

I thank all members across the way as we maintain and strengthen Canada to keep Canada strong.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I normally thank colleagues across the way for their speeches, but I cannot today.

I enjoyed serving on OGGO with the member opposite, but the media, if it bothered to fact-check the member's speech today, would probably spend two or three hours picking everything apart. It was funny to listen to the beginning of his speech. The former Kathleen Wynne finance minister who helped destroy Ontario's finances thanked the finance minister, who is on his way to matching the massive debt spending. He was also the Ontario finance minister who saw Ontario receive equalization payments from the rest of the country for every year he was finance minister.

I want to talk about one specific item. The member talked about respecting institutions. The government has not yet appointed a new Parliamentary Budget Officer. The interim officer's term ends March 3, and a new officer has not yet been named. The government operations committee put forward a motion that the government consult with Parliament about choosing a new Parliamentary Budget Officer, but none has been named yet.

Why is the government not respecting the institutions the member talks about its wanting to support so much?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, having engaged with the member opposite in OGGO, I appreciate his reminding the House that I did six budgets and that I did balance the books. Ontario was the largest contributor to the rest of the federation. Even when it was a so-called have-not province, we contributed more to Canada, over $11 billion, than all the other provinces, while Quebec and others were receiving some of that funding.

Ontario was also the first to increase its credit rating, during the time I was there, recognizing the strength of our measures being taken. Over one million net new jobs were brought to the province of Ontario during that time, after we had to suffer the 2008 recession, during which the Conservatives were in power. We were still able to balance the books.

The member opposite talked about the PBO being an independent member of the House. That is essential, and I am sure it will happen in time. We will require that to be the case. All of us are held to account, and the truth matters.

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

Madam Speaker, it can be difficult to maintain order in the House. However, we in the Bloc Québécois respect the Chair, of course.

My colleague is a former finance minister. In the budget and the budget implementation bill, Bill C‑15, the government is extending carbon capture tax credits for five years to help oil and gas companies.

Does my colleague, who, as I just said, is a former finance minister, believe that oil companies are having so much trouble staying afloat and making a profit that it is justified for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers to help them spend money?

Does my colleague really think that oil companies are in such bad shape and that they are not making enough money?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question enables us to talk about some of the measures that I took when I was minister of finance, as the member opposite reminds us. We brought in a cap-and-trade system in Ontario, aligning ourselves with Quebec. Quebec was part of the western climate initiative with California. Ontario had decarbonized its system, so we were great receivers of $1.3 billion annually through that system.

It was the Conservatives who brought in carbon tax pricing to Ontario as a gas tax. We were the ones who were exempt. The Liberal Party of Ontario was able to provide an exemption on that very issue, as was Quebec.

We talk about the $1.3 billion that we use for dollar-for-dollar reinvestment in inspiring economic growth in the province of Ontario. This has now been delayed because the Conservatives brought forward a carbon gas tax that was unnecessary. As it stands, all of us should be paying a little extra to provide greener opportunities for all of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be interested in hearing the member's understanding or appreciation of the importance of trade to Canada and why, whether it is the Prime Minister, the cabinet or so many of our colleagues, they are pursuing ways in which we can increase exports. It is a very important aspect of the economy. Canada makes up about 0.5% of the world population, yet we participate in 2.5% of world trade.

I am wondering if the member could provide his perspective on the important issue of trade.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an essential part of the budget. Expanding our trade routes and expanding trade across the world is part of what gives Canada an opportunity to provide a measure, a step, for some countries to deal in the western hemisphere. Canada has been succeeding. Over $1 trillion is now being projected in supports with Canada's engagement. We are punching above our weight. In fact, Canada remains one of the top destinations for foreign direct investments, and the reason is that investors believe in Canada.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite why it was necessary for the government to include a provision to exempt individuals and companies from acts of Parliament, rather than using the usual legislative amendment provisions.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is speaking about exemptions for opportunities to make Canada more effective, to expedite matters more essential to our economy. I would refer her to those particulars. Every exemption that occurs has to be fully transparent.

There is one thing that should never be hampered but is when the Conservatives try to control the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Ontario Securities Commission or judges. That is uncalled for, and it is one of the reasons a public budget officer is also essential to this role.

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

Madam Speaker, the government is bringing back the clean electricity tax credit in Bill C‑15, which, in many ways, is a better written bill than some of its predecessors. Officials confirmed to the Standing Committee on Finance that this credit would apply to small modular nuclear reactors that would be specifically used to clean up the oil sands in order to produce more oil.

Can my colleague explain what is clean about using nuclear electricity to produce even more of the dirtiest oil in the world?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite may or may not know that CANDU reactors and the corporation are within my riding. I have met with representatives of Candu Energy on a number of occasions. We talked about small modular reactors providing supports and electricity to those remote communities in the far north that rely primarily on diesel, which is extremely dirty, to provide greater sources of, and more secure, electricity in those areas. As we move into major projects around Canada, we are going to need some greater degree of energy.

I can say that world markets are looking to Canada-made reactors and that our CANDU reactors, not just the small modular reactors but our CANDUs, are sought after because of their ability, effectiveness, competitiveness and safety measures. I support our nuclear program in Canada for that very reason.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the respect that Canada commands from countries and international organizations around the world. One recent example is from the International Monetary Fund. The IMF highlighted that Canada is a G7 country that has significant fiscal headroom to support economic growth through investment.

Can my colleague comment on how this budget leverages Canada's fiscal capacity to build and unleash our country's economic potential? Does he agree with the IMF's accolade?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much, and I think all of us appreciate it. All of us in the House should stand proud and tall for the fact that Canada is seen around the world, and by the G7 and the IMF, for its ability and capacity to grow and invest. Canada has done extraordinary things during downturns. Certainly in 2008, we weathered it better than any other part of the world because we had taken those steps. The IMF appreciates Canada. I think the rest of the world does as well, and so should we.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the budget implementation act, I really have three things I want to talk about. I want to talk a bit about the process and the committee process that took us to what may be the last day that we debate this bill. I want to talk about some of the things that Conservatives agree with that are contained in the BIA, and I want to talk about those with which we disagree.

I want to begin by being clear on the parliamentary record that what happened with the debate on the BIA in many respects is a credit, if I may say so, to the parliamentary process by which parties agree to a work plan within committee and have a robust work plan that calls for officials and ministers to appear. We did not really have time to call very many experts outside of the public service itself, but when the bill was referred to committee, the committee got to work and got to work collaboratively.

The reason I bring this up is that it has been falsely and repeatedly said in this chamber that this bill was held up by the opposition. It was not. There is only one party that has filibustered and delayed business at the finance committee. It is actually the Liberal Party, which did so on Bill C-4. On three different occasions, they filibustered their own bill.

I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North. I invite him to check the record, maybe check with his parliamentary secretary.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am just being heckled left, right and centre. I do not know what is with the Liberals today, but I will maybe leave it at that on the process and talk about things that Conservatives agree with in this BIA. This BIA contains policy reversals from the government that we support, like repealing the digital services tax, something that we fought tooth and nail in the last Parliament. We foretold all of the consequences of that bill, and now here we are in the next Parliament, with the Liberals admitting through their legislation that Conservatives were right all along, and repealing the digital services tax. They are also repealing the luxury tax on corporate aircraft and some watercraft.

We said at the time that these taxes would simply harm industry, would raise insignificant amounts of revenue and, in fact, would likely result in lost economic activity. They have come around to us on that. They have come around on the underutilized housing tax, which we raised concerns about when they brought it in, and they are repealing this. These are all positive steps with which we agree. There are many things we do not agree with in the BIA. I am going to talk about a few of them as time will allow.

The BIA creates a Crown corporation to at least explore the construction of a high-speed rail network. We are not opposed to infrastructure, if we want to call this train such, but what they are actually doing here is proposing and beginning to spend significant amounts of money on a train that has dubious projections for its ridership and absolutely terrifying possibilities for total cost. We oppose this. The CEO of this new corp testified at committee. He was candid, and he certainly gave nothing to assure Canadians that this would not ultimately become an extraordinary boondoggle. He would not even acknowledge and seemed to act surprised when we talked about the existing subsidy to keep the existing rail network going, which relies on a subsidy of $2 for every dollar that it takes in fares.

I am going to run out of time with all the things that are wrong with this budget, but we move on to Veterans Affairs. The BIA contains an absolutely disgraceful provision for the Government of Canada to correct what it calls an ongoing mistake. Really, it is that the Department of Veterans Affairs, over a series of governments, has systematically denied proper levels of compensation to veterans on the basis of a 1998 law.

The government is being sued successfully, and it appears that it would be ordered to repay $870 million to veterans, many of whom are in long-term care. These are elderly veterans who have, in some cases, given blood and limbs for their country. To deal with the prospect of being ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in compensation, the government is trying to retroactively change a 1998 law to avoid it and give itself legal cover to refuse compensation to veterans. It is shameful.

We have heard a lot about the ministerial powers, including in the last interventions in the previous speech. I am going to go past that one because, fortunately, these were amended. This is what happened at committee. We agreed to a 605-clause bill that we went through clause by clause in only six hours. Amendments were proposed. Some amendments were accepted by the government, which is appreciated. Partially dialing back the draconian powers that the government has given itself would be one point, but we had ministerial appearances, and I have to take some time and unpack what happened when we had the Minister of Finance at committee.

The budget implementation act would implement a budget with a $78.3-billion deficit. The members of the governing party campaigned in an election, promising not to exceed their deficit. The last deficit that was tabled in the previous budget was $42 billion. There was a promise not to exceed that deficit. The Liberals formed a new government, a continuation of the old government. They added $20 billion in new deficit spending in a projection. They then promised that they would not exceed that deficit projection, but they tabled a budget with a $78-billion deficit.

I do not understand how all of these members, especially the ones who have been here since 2015, campaigned in election after election, promising that it was going to get better and that they were going to rein in spending. They promised, in 2015, to balance the budget by 2017. The Liberals have broken every promise, blown through every fiscal guardrail, cut loose every fiscal anchor, and now want to be taken at their word that $78 billion is the new number they will not exceed. The debt-to-GDP ratio is not even declining. It is going up. That used to be the sacred line that they would not cross, in the words of one of the previous finance ministers.

When the current finance minister came to committee and was asked repeatedly about balanced budgets, he actually said to me that it was irresponsible for members of the opposition to ask the finance minister when the government would balance the budget. He refused to answer a basic financial question for five solid minutes. He could have said to the committee that the government currently does not have a projection that goes out far enough to find a balanced budget, that what we see in the budget is as good as it gets or that the officials have nothing further to say on the future of deficits, but he did not. He actually challenged the legitimacy of the question. How arrogant does someone have to be, when they are in government, to suggest to an opposition member that they should not ask basic questions about the health and future of the finances of this country?

The Liberals have talked in their speeches today about the construction of major projects. They promised to build these at speeds unimaginable. We are a year in now. There are no approvals and not even any real talk about these projects. They will not even say the word “pipeline” out loud. Again, when confronted with questions about on which date construction might begin or on which date we can expect an approval, there was no answer.

The accountability has been disappointing, and that is why we oppose this budget implementation act.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in the member's argument when he talks about the deficit. Surely to goodness he would recognize that of the G7 countries, countries like the United States, France and England, there are only two countries that have a AAA rating, Canada being one of them. We, the government and the Prime Minister, are using our financial capacity to build a stronger, healthier infrastructure here in Canada. We then hear the Conservatives waffle, saying they do not think this or they are not too sure about that. We saw that yesterday.

For example, does the Conservative Party support a high-speed train for Canada? I think the Conservative Party needs to be straightforward with Canadians and say yes or no. I will leave it at that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always fun watching the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader try to hold the opposition to account. That intervention says everything about these guys.

First of all, he is ignoring all of the promises he has run on in four elections. He is now taking credit for a AAA credit rating that his government inherited from the previous government, which is under threat by at least one agency that is talking about review. His government deserves no credit for that. It would be one thing if they had not promised something different. They did not promise to expand the deficit forever because of their fiscal capacity. That is not what they ran on. They ran on not increasing the deficit, and they have broken that promise.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, with whom we work very well on the Standing Committee on Finance. In the budget, the government allocates $11.5 billion to Build Canada Homes. This money will not be subject to parliamentary oversight. We have no idea how the programs will work and, more importantly, we have no guarantees that the money will be allocated fairly among the provinces.

I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks about Build Canada Homes. I would like to know whether he thinks that there should be a guaranteed percentage for social, community and communal housing in Quebec, among other things.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, his question takes us right into everything wrong with the government's approach to nearly any public policy problem out there. The Liberals build bureaucracies. That is what they build. They set up fiscal structures and financial structures that, at best, are oblique and, at worst, just send money into black holes. I fundamentally disagree with the approach of the government. I am extraordinarily skeptical of its ability to achieve any of the things that it says its bureaucratic structures are set up to do.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, the bureau of pensions advocates is about to lose half of its workforce. The Liberal government is sunsetting a program that is meant to address wait times for Canada's RCMP and military veterans. This is important for veterans who are appealing benefits that have been denied. In fact, the bureau has had an 89% success rate for cases that have been heard improving benefits.

Greg Harlow, the president of the Association of Justice Counsel, the union representing the lawyers employed by the federal government, said, “Veterans are going to get hurt” by this. The NDP put forward a motion to reverse these cuts, which was defeated by the Liberal government just yesterday.

Can my colleague speak about the duty and the honour we have to support Canada's RCMP and military veterans?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane, commented on this in debate yesterday. For those watching who do not know, this structure they are cutting is one that was created to help veterans cope with the sheer complexity of systems that seem almost designed, in cases, to deny benefits. That is what fiscal discipline, if that is what they want to call it, looks like with the current government, trying to stick to a promise-breaking deficit by clawing back or refusing to repay $870 million to veterans and by cutting the people who protect veterans who are struggling to get the benefits they are entitled to.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my first time speaking to this budget, so I am happy to rise in the House today.

The first thing I would like to deal with, and all the time, of course, is the balance that we are talking about here. This budget projects a balance of $78.3 billion, and that was delivered not so long ago. Since then, we have accumulated billions of dollars more in program spending that the government did not foresee when it initially brought the deficit out at $78.3 billion, and the budget was significantly late. I know my colleagues will find me to be a broken record on that, but the ability to plan and spend requires having some focus, not just a blank cheque.

There is no foresight. There is no planning. Now, we are dealing with parts of the budget and spending money as if we have money when, in fact, we do not as a country. We have central bankers writing cheques at this point in time thinking there is no problem and just pushing out the payments for what we are doing today onto future generations. Well, there is a problem. That problem is already being witnessed across the country in higher inflation, in higher food costs, in higher housing costs and in higher costs for Canadians in general, which are leaving a generation of people behind who will need to catch up to make sure they have great futures, not more expensive futures but futures where they can build families, have housing and feed their families really well.

However, we are a country awash in debt and not just at the federal level. We look at the $1.3 trillion in debt that the country has right now, and it is going to continue to get higher. My colleagues on the other side will say, “We still have a AAA credit rating.” I would ask them if that is because they have fooled the financiers who are providing the rating, like they do in the budget documents they provide where they say that Canadians' pensions and the Quebec pension plan are actually part of the dollars they use as collateral against the debt. They are not. They are Canadians' pensions and they should not be putting those at risk, or at any conception of risk, in the marketplace. That would be a fundamental mistake. Take it out of there, and they have the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in almost the entire world, save for one or two countries.

Canadians are also personally in debt. I remember when the previous prime minister talked about piling on debt by the Government of Canada so that Canadians would not have to pile on that debt themselves. Canadians are the highest personally indebted people in the G7. It is double in Canada. We have a very indebted federal government and indebted provincial governments, but very indebted consumers as well. Therefore, when things happen badly, they are going to happen very badly as this debt spiral unfolds.

I am going to switch now to some of the things that we have talked about. The government mistakenly put forward in the budget implementation act what it calls “regulatory sandboxes”. I am going to talk about these regulatory sandboxes because many of us have dealt with them before. I know some of my colleagues in the financial services industry have probably seen them in the way regulators look at bringing in new financial products, but the government wanted exemptions from everything. Effectively we call them King Henry VIII laws. This is what the finance committee of the House of Commons had to deal with. The Conservatives brought forward some part-way solutions on this in order to get this over the line in a way that did not more or less emasculate Parliament.

The exemptions that the government members were seeking were that “Subject to subsections (3) and (7), a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of (a) a provision of an Act of Parliament,” except the Criminal Code, “if the minister is responsible for the Act”.

What the Liberals are doing here is trying to say, “All those laws that are passed that are part of the law of Canada, part of the regulations, we get to go around them. We do not care what they say. We want an exemption from all those laws because we think Parliament is a bit of a hurdle we have to get over. We want executive power in ourselves and not to have to answer to this House of Parliament.”

We know there are 343 members in the House, and I have no idea why half of them on the other side want to make themselves irrelevant. If they want to make themselves irrelevant as a party, I would say to the Liberal Party, do not run, because we have a country to run here. This is Parliament. If they think Parliament is just the executive, I would submit that they are wrong. Democracy requires that we have three stools to democracy. That includes an independent judiciary; a legislature, which we are here; and an executive. We empower that executive to get things done, but members of the executive have to bring all kinds of issues to the House to get the authority to act, including to spend money.

That is what the government is doing here with the budget implementation act. The estimates will confirm what we are going to let it spend. However, it is Parliament that decides that, and the government cannot get around the laws of Canada or Parliament in that respect.

It reminds me of Bill C-5. Members will recall Bill C-5. It was the Building Canada Act that happened in the summer, and we passed it subject to Conservative Party changes at committee that effectively said we are putting a whole bunch of borders around what the government can exempt itself from here, because we are still a country governed by laws. Those laws are important, of course. People expect those laws to continue. If we are not going to be a country of laws, we have lost something very important, and investors around the world see that.

I will contradict my colleague on the other side who said earlier that there is lots of investment coming into Canada. The only investment coming into Canada currently is government spending, which is more or less putting us deeper and deeper into debt. We are billions upon billions of dollars behind as far as investments in Canada go. Our pension plans are investing elsewhere. Everybody is investing elsewhere, because they do not see the path forward in Canada at this point in time. This is something we need to change, and if the government wants to change it, my colleagues and I will be behind them all the way making sure we make changes to things, like the Impact Assessment Act and like the tanker moratorium on the west coast, that would actually encourage us to have an economy that works in this country again. The government must get on to the real issues that should be addressed in the budget.

I am going to address a few other things here. One of the issues that we talk about is the memorandum of understanding that happened between the government and the Government of Alberta, the province where I live. The interesting thing is in the budget itself. I am going to read directly from the budget, which was passed on November 17 in the House. The budget says, of carbon capture, utilization and storage, “Eligible uses include dedicated geological storage and storage in concrete, but not enhanced oil recovery”.

Ten days later, the government had a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta that said it was going to extend federal investment tax credits and other policy supports to encourage enhanced oil recovery. I am all for that. As a matter of fact, I put a bill forward in the House of Commons five years ago that said that is exactly what we should do because we are losing technology and businesses to the United States. We needed to do this a long time ago, but why on earth would the government pass a budget saying it was not going to do that and then sign a document with one of the provincial governments in Canada, the Government of Alberta, saying it is going to do exactly that?

It is no wonder the Liberal Party's own members do not trust the executive on the other side, and I would ask those backbenchers on the other side who do not support this, and half of them on the other side do not support this, why they are going to continue to push forward to give this executive even more power so it does not have to bring these kinds of issues to the House of Commons. It is our job to legislate here, and I will stand with my colleagues and make sure the government does not walk over our rights in the House.

There is one other thing I want to talk about, because it is important: the high-speed rail. We are country awash in debt. I think I pointed that out several times in the House. One of the reasons I ran here was to get our fiscal house back in order, and for us to actually plan on spending perhaps $90 billion on a new train that would serve a small geographic portion of this country at this point in time is a stretch. It is a gross stretch, but I will also point out that the start of the spending on this happened while the government was not even here. It had prorogued the House, and the government issued warrants, which is what they are called, to pay for unauthorized work with one of their favourite companies, AtkinsRéalis, which used to be SNC Lavalin, which was awash in corruption. Members will recall that very well, I am certain.

Something this country has to be ahead of is the fact that there is a lot of money going into hands behind Canadians' backs that has nothing to do with the House of Commons. This is something we have to get ahead of. We are a democracy. Let us uphold our democratic country here. Let us build a stronger Canada. Let us make sure we expose this budget and understand it so that Canadians can have the transparency they require.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is concerned about some exemptions in regard to ministers and he is not recognizing what the budget would do for technology, building and promoting economic growth. It is not to take away from the powers of the House of Commons. We could be using our standing committees in many different ways than we currently use them, ensuring more accountability and transparency. My concern is more so with the member's statements when he talked about these major projects.

I have two very simple questions. Does the member, or does the Conservative Party, actually support the entire MOU between Canada and the Province of Alberta? Second, when he makes reference to that small stretch of railway, that small stretch he is referring to is very important to the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. Does the Conservative Party actually support that?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thought we were limited to one question, but I get to answer two questions. I hope we get some time for that.

The first one is on the memorandum of understanding between the Government of Alberta and the executive here in Parliament. I would submit to all Canadians, and all Albertans in particular, that they should read that document, because it is a document full of false starts. It is full of, “A is a prerequisite to B, and B is a prerequisite to A.” They have already admitted this week that their April 1 deadline on many parts is unworkable. Talk to the companies that have to invest in that. They are saying this is uninvestable.

When we have a memorandum of understanding that every private sector organization says does not work, we have to pay attention to that. Every level of government has to pay attention to it and look at what they are getting at the end of the day. There are many benefits that happened in that, which were things the Government of Canada had to accomplish anyway.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague for Calgary Centre, who used to serve with me on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. His mother is from Jonquière. That is why I like him.

I know that he shares some of my views on the special tax treatment given to the oil and gas industry. In the budget, there are major tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration. There is also the accelerated capital cost allowance, which will enable the oil and gas industry to benefit from lavish tax breaks. The government is offering all of that even though the oil and gas industry has been making record profits since 2022.

I would like to remind the House that, since the big oil and gas companies are mainly American-owned, most of the profits are going to the United States.

I would like my colleague to talk to me about the lavish tax breaks being given to the oil and gas industry in the budget. Is he comfortable with that?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for mentioning my mother and her hometown, Jonquière. My mother says hi to him. Sometimes she watches what is happening in the House.

Alberta's oil and gas sector is important for the country. It is Canada's most important sector, and it is important for exporting oil overseas via the new pipeline that will run from Alberta to Vancouver. It is important for everyone. It is important for tax revenues and our standard of living, but it is also Canada's most internationally competitive sector. We produce oil here that costs more than $40 a barrel, but the oil produced in the Middle East costs $6 a barrel. We are competitive here, it is—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I have to give time for one more question.

The hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, given that tens of billions of dollars are going to be allocated for high-speed rail, does the member think that it is necessary for the government to have some sort of independent cost-benefit analysis that would include when there is not enough ridership in order to fund the rail system and the cost to taxpayers?

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, many of my colleagues on this side of the House know that I used to be the policy adviser to the minister of transport back in the early 1990s. We were looking at this project at that point in time, and it was too expensive then. It was massively expensive, and now, of course, the country is awash in debt. When we have bills to pay, we have to pay our bills first, rather than getting the bright, shiny, new toy on the horizon. We have to make sure that we take—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Madam Speaker, just before I got up to speak, I was looking at the website of Environment Canada, a science-based department that we love. The government is cutting positions in that department. According to Environment Canada, the temperature in Ottawa today felt like -18°C. On days like these, it warms our hearts to see you in the chair, Madam Speaker, so thank you very much for being here.

We are talking about Bill C‑15. We are talking about the budget, and we are going to talk about its substance, its content, but we also have to talk about its form. We cannot ignore the fact that the government chose to introduce a 603-page omnibus bill.

These big omnibus bills have become grab bags that include much more than what is in a given budget. They were roundly criticized by the Liberals in the Harper era. Even in the Harper era, people thought this approach was undemocratic. Budget implementation bills used to be much slimmer.

We have before us today the second-longest budget implementation act in the history of the Confederation. It is 603 pages long and amends 49 statutes. This poses a problem for democracy because, as I said, it is a real grab bag. A lot of the legislative items in it have no business being included in a budget implementation act and should have been debated separately in the House.

These 49 statutes, 603 pages and certain measures pose significant problems for democracy and for people's rights. I am going to talk about expropriated individuals, but I am also going to address other issues. We had just one day in committee to study all that. That just goes to show that the government has decided to govern without the House of Commons and has little regard for Parliament. We know that the Prime Minister has decided to act like Canada's CEO. We saw an example of that today.

This budget was tabled partly because parliamentarians had asked for one. In the last election campaign, we were told that the world had changed, that a budget needed to be presented quickly, and an election was called. We were not told whether there would be a budget when Parliament returned and, in the end, there was no budget. Fall came and we had to nag the Minister of Finance to tell us whether he was going to table a budget. He did not know.

Eventually, the government decided to switch up the budget cycle. It did not allow the Standing Committee on Finance to hold pre‑budget consultations. It did not let us listen to Quebeckers and Canadians so we could consider their recommendations. It tabled a budget.

Despite the fact that some top-notch officials worked on the document, it is a budget that is, in many ways, poorly cobbled together and inadequate. There are some poorly drafted measures, and certain provisions will have unforeseen effects, so we had to work very hard during the only committee day we had. In some cases, the government listened to us. In other cases, it did not.

One example of something that should not have been included in the budget is the high-speed rail network act. I believe it should be debated. I believe that cost-benefit analyses are needed, as my Conservative colleague said. I believe conversations are needed. I even believe that it could be a promising project.

However, as part of this project, a decision was made to create two classes of citizens along the proposed route. A decision was made to make it easier to expropriate people living along the route than would be possible with any other project in Canada.

Mirabel is an expropriation case study. What the people of Mirabel and people along the route are being told is that they are not equal before the law and that there is a special law for them. What they are being told is that, if this were any other project happening elsewhere in Canada, when they receive a notice of expropriation, they would have the right to challenge the price and ask to be heard by a hearing officer, who is impartial, before the minister makes their final decision. However, since they are along the route, they will be pushed to their limits. They will be asked to drain their savings and their RRSPs to go before the Federal Court.

With our amendments, we simply wanted to restore people's right to be heard. I do not think it is unreasonable to ask for justice and equality and to ask that folks not be treated like second-class citizens. It seems to me that this has nothing to do with the project itself. It seems to me that this is about a basic level of justice. The Liberals have decided that justice no longer matters, as long as the train goes through. As for the Conservatives, some of them decided to hide behind the curtains when it came time to vote to restore the rights of people in our communities and across Canada who live along the proposed route.

We think a study should be conducted on the impact this will have on communities. Villages are going to be separated. This train will cross 700 roads in Quebec. It is possible that villages will be cut in half. This is not about opposing the project, but it is normal to want to know what is going to happen. It is our job as parliamentarians to seek the truth. Truth is not Alto's specialty, and it is our job to demand it.

Under the legislation that is about to be passed, if the train runs through the end of a farm or field and the owner receives an expropriation notice, they will not even have the right to rebuild their silo, barn or stable in the event of a disaster.

Yesterday in the House, I talked about my friend Éric Couvrette from Sainte-Scholastique, whose cattle shed burned down two summers ago. He is a dairy farmer. His farm runs alongside the airport fences. He has experienced expropriation before. He had to rebuild from scratch. He lost his livelihood to the fire. We saw his cows lying charred in the field. I went there the next day. It was awful. Rebuilding all of that is complicated.

These people have a right to earn a living. Under Bill C-15 as it stands today, if the train goes through their property, they would not be able to rebuild everything and would not be able to earn a living. They would be told to just declare bankruptcy.

We introduced an amendment, but the government would not hear of it. What does this have to do with the actual train? It has nothing to do with the actual train. We actually want to help improve the bill, but the government is telling us that it is no good and it is unwilling to get better. However, the opposition can be constructive, and that is exactly what we suggested.

We also said that expropriations should not happen by email by default. We understand that it is the 21st century and people do not communicate by telegram anymore and they can send emails. Alto officials told the committee that if someone wants a registered letter, they just have to ask, and Alto will accommodate them. I introduced an amendment to incorporate what Alto asked us. It was not a joke. Our amendment said that traditional means of communication would be used, unless someone asks to receive communication by email, in which case the rest of the process could be done by email. I do not think this constitutes extremism, obstruction or opposition aimed at preventing the budget from passing. We are saying that the government has gone a bit overboard—“a bit” is a euphemism here—and that it needs to respect people. The answer we are getting is that we are the opposition, that we are just whiners, and that people's land is being expropriated by email. However, on the ground, Alto officials are saying that they cannot expropriate by email. It is in the bill. It is in the legislation. It is written in black and white, and we explained that in committee. These people are being given tools to misbehave. We cannot assume that they will misbehave, but they have been given the tools to do it. They are coming to our ridings. They were there this week, and they are lying to the people who show up for their so-called consultations.

Our amendments would not have delayed this project, because there is no project yet. Mr. Imbleau, Alto's chief executive officer, appeared before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance and was asked how much the train was going to cost. He does not know how much it is going to cost. He cannot tell us that. Two weeks ago, I asked the chief executive officer of the Canada Infrastructure Bank, or CIB, whether it was going to be providing funding. The CEO of the CIB said that it was hard to know, because the project does not exist yet. However, for some reason, there is an urgent need to expropriate land at top speed, accelerate the process and say it is coming soon. Something does not add up. None of this was slowing down their project. What we are asking for is decency and respect in a project where all the usual red flags are already up.

My colleagues know that megaprojects that fail and become a disaster for taxpayers all have a number of things in common: overestimated revenues, underestimated costs and very long-term forecasts to make things look better, because most of the costs come earlier in the project. We have the right to ask these questions. We have the right to want to improve things. That would have required an entire committee and a separate bill. That is what Parliament is for, and that is why this should not be included in such an omnibus bill.

We have a major democratic issue with a bill that is so thick that I had to buy a trailer for my car to haul it around with me.

Let us talk about the digital services tax. The Prime Minister said he would exempt companies that are already evading taxes from the digital services tax, and at the same time, the minimum tax for multinationals was removed. These companies are not paying their fair share. It was a gamble on the part of the Prime Minister. He figured he would bow down a little to President Trump in the hopes that that would put him in a good mood, but he was still in a bad mood, so then we thought the Prime Minister might reinstate the tax. The president was in a bad mood, but the Prime Minister did not want to reinstate the tax because he said it would put the president in an even worse mood. Then, however, the Prime Minister went to Davos and infuriated the president, but he is still not reinstating the tax, despite the media crisis and the fact that our local media are having their content stolen and that it is a struggle to fund our newsrooms. There are no measures in the budget to ensure the health of the fourth pillar of democracy. It seems to me that this alone would have warranted a debate.

When an omnibus bill of this size is tabled at the last minute, in the fall rather than in the spring, there can be unforeseen events and effects from the budget. Let me give an example. The government decided to exempt Canada Post from its obligation to have its rate schedule approved by the government. However, Canada Post provides services that may not be financially profitable but are socially beneficial, particularly for visually impaired individuals and for the BIBLIO Network of municipal libraries in the regions that send books to each other, sometimes over long distances, at preferential rates. The government worked so quickly, because it was not ready to table its budget, that it forgot it would deprive all the remote regions of Quebec and the rest of Canada of this preferential rate.

I asked the Minister of Finance and National Revenue in committee whether he was aware that his bill had that impact. He did not have a clue what I was talking about. The government was right about that. I followed up with the minister and an amendment was introduced. That is what the Bloc Québécois is for. An amendment was introduced and as we say back home, we managed to patch that hole. However, how many holes are there in this bill, which parliamentarians did not have time to go through in one morning? This is fundamentally a democratic issue.

There is a rare earth elements and critical minerals strategy. The government forgot one important mineral, namely, phosphate, which is used to make batteries. We had to add that in the bill. The government did not want to. The government says it wants an energy transition, but it overlooked the fact that batteries require phosphate and that 100% of new phosphate-refining projects are geared towards battery manufacturing. That is what the Bloc Québécois is for. It took the Bloc Québécois and my amendment to add phosphate to the bill. The government said no initially, but through debate, it finally said yes.

When you cash a cheque in Canada, federally regulated banks are not allowed to freeze a cheque that is for less than $100. This amount has not been indexed for years. Today, if you have a small family, you cannot even deposit $100 and then go to the grocery store. This means that if you deposit a cheque for the new Canada groceries benefit at the bank, under the current law, the cheque will be frozen for two weeks. The Bloc Québécois had to introduce an amendment to increase the minimum amount to $250 to ensure that individuals who get these government cheques can deposit their cheque, and the funds will not be frozen. We are not making this stuff up. Had the Minister of Finance and National Revenue taken the time to do his job properly and to ensure public servants did their job, we would not have been forced to patch yet another hole.

Let us talk about regulatory sandboxes. Countries around the world have regulatory sandbox arrangements. There are ways to make legislation and regulations more flexible for innovation, particularly in the health sector. No country in the world introduces legislation that applies to all sectors indiscriminately and to all laws but the Criminal Code. That does not happen. Taking those powers away from Parliament is a Canadian innovation. We think this can be a good idea, but everything depends on how it is done. This way of doing things does not exist in other countries.

The Conservatives joined forces with the Liberals. An agreement was reached. They decided there were some laws that the government could not waive in those regulatory sandboxes. That is better than nothing. However, environmental laws are not protected. Labour laws are not protected. First nations' rights are not protected. The official opposition's temporary absence from the House allowed things to move forward. They can shout until they are blue in the face, but that is what happened in committee.

We are in favour of open banking. We all want competition in sales and banking transactions. We want apps on our phones. However, banks are regulated by the federal government under the Bank Act. They are manufacturers of financial products. The brokers are regulated under Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. They are not manufacturers of financial products. The Bloc Québécois had to get an amendment adopted that explicitly says that the new federal legislation will not effectively invalidate Quebec's Consumer Protection Act. That is basic stuff, but the Liberals are still not doing their job properly. We had to patch those holes. We are not just complaining, we took tangible measures. We were forced to propose amendments so that the Quebec government would be comfortable with the bill. Do these ministers not have phones? Does the House not pay for phones?

I want to talk about the clean electricity tax credit, which will apply to modular nuclear reactors that will be used to clean up dirty oil. What is clean about that? If my colleagues think that is clean, I invite them to drink a glass of it and see how they feel the next day. This is like a bad movie: long-winded and zero suspense. A clean electricity tax credit should not apply to dirty oil. The carbon capture tax credit is being extended until 2041 and, at the same time, this bill is weakening the anti-greenwashing law. Since Bill C‑15 was introduced, oil company advertisements have started to once again promote carbon capture and green oil. At the same time, the government is funding these technologies. That is what this bill does. It is anything but an energy transition.

With regard to the Canada Infrastructure Bank, the government is increasing its capital from $35 billion to $45 billion even though the bank's officials have not managed to spend what they already had. Our committee has been chasing after them to find out how they spend the money. We do not know and they are incapable of telling us, but the government went ahead and added $10 billion in capital, all of which is hidden from parliamentarians because it is outside the government's reporting entity.

The budget has $11.5 billion for Build Canada Homes. No one is against homes. Personally, when I take a walk in my riding, I see that everyone likes homes. However, the $11.5 billion is for an administrative entity. We do not know the programs or how things will work. Neither do we know whether Quebec will get its share. We do not know how the funds will be distributed across the provinces. However, we do know that this is important, because Quebec is the only province that has permanent social, community and co-op housing construction programs. This has always been a sensitive matter. This is exactly what derailed the Liberals' national housing strategy initially for three and a half years. That was three and a half years ago. Well, here they go again. We would have liked to have some answers about that. However, what can we do, under closure, in a single morning?

There are many things we could mention. There are a few good things in the budget, but not enough to vote in favour of it. For example, there is the luxury tax on aircraft. The New Democrats are shouting themselves hoarse, but the luxury tax was a luxury in name only. What we were doing was taxing commercial aircraft. We were taxing our own aerospace industry. Do members know what people were doing? They were buying aircraft from other countries. Aircraft fly and cross borders. We were killing our own market. It took three, four, five years for the minister to understand, even though it was part of our budget requests.

The government also agreed to reimburse customs duties to organizations for donated goods. Organizations were receiving donated goods and paying customs duties. I do not know if anyone looked up the word “generosity” in the dictionary, but that was not part of the definition. We had that corrected. Furthermore, is the accelerated capital cost allowance a good measure? It is an investment support measure. However, the Liberals choose the winners. The winners are oil. The winners are gas. We also have a problem with digital sovereignty. Fibre optic companies are chasing after the minister, trying to alert him to the fact that they were overlooked. The Liberals have picked the winners. For once they were in the right place, they picked the winners.

I believe in the work of the opposition parties. I think that we can improve budgets and are capable of doing something good with them. However, nobody thinks that spending half a day in committee on 603 pages makes the slightest bit of sense. In future, I urge the government to perhaps not do that again.

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

Madam Speaker, let me attempt to address the member's concerns head-on. As the member knows, it was a unanimous consent motion that ultimately allowed us to get the process to where we are today. Prior to that unanimous consent motion, if we just flash back to a couple of months ago, there was a great deal of filibustering taking place on the floor of the House of Commons.

This legislation was introduced back in November. There was plenty of opportunity for the House to discuss it. I remember even standing up asking for us to sit until midnight in order to accommodate more debate. We could have had it go to committee back in November or early December, but unless the opposition allows legislation to get out of second reading, we ultimately have to wait until we can get unanimous consent in order to get it through.

We are grateful it is going to pass today, do not get me wrong, but that is because a unanimous consent motion was brought forward. It would have been far better to pass it at second reading back in November, and we could have spent more time on it in committee. Would the member not agree?

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

Madam Speaker, there are two parts to my colleague's question.

The honesty of the first part is debatable. The budget timeline is perfectly normal. There was the budget speech, which the House adopted. There was a notice of ways and means motion to ensure that the tax measures already apply. We voted on the estimates. We now come to the budget implementation bill, which was tabled after the budget, and we see that it is two and a half inches thick and that we need time to study it.

My colleague can say whatever he likes, but sometimes it takes time because the government went too far and the bill is a bit too thick. We can already see the improvements that we have made in the little time that we have had to work on it.

I grew up in northern Quebec. Through the Quebec BIBLIO Network, I was able to read books in a town with a population of 4,000 and order books from other libraries. That was overlooked, but it is fine.

If the government wants things to move quickly, it needs to allow opposition members to work. The government needs to table legislation that is less divisive and that actually implements the budget, instead of it being a grab bag. It needs to let us do our work.

That is entirely its prerogative.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I particularly appreciated my colleague's observation on the omnibus nature of this bill.

We saw that the Liberals concealed some measures in Bill C‑15 that were not in the budget. One example is the regulatory sandbox. That would have allowed cabinet ministers to exempt companies or individuals from almost any federal law or regulation in Canada.

I am thankful that we were able to correct this harmful measure in committee. Still, I want to know what my colleague thinks of the fact that the Liberals tried to sneak in this measure in the first place.

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

The facts are very simple, Madam Speaker. We were in committee before Christmas, preparing to study the budget. We then wondered which minister we were going to invite to come and testify. Well, the entire cabinet could have been invited given how many subjects they put in it and just how much they packed into it. There were between 15 to 20 ministers. It would have taken 10 or 12 committees, because the Standing Committee on Finance, with its resources, was not even able to get through this bill. We worked miracles with our colleagues in the other committees.

Now the Liberals are standing up and telling us that we are very slow. What is next? Are they going to tell us that the earth is flat? At some point, the limited resources that we have run out. We need to be able to focus and do the necessary analysis. It is not right that we have reached the point where we are studying omnibus bills that require 22, 23 or even 24 ministers in committee. Compromises were made: Only 18 ministers and 12 committees were involved with this budget.

That is when we realize that ultimately they are using the convention of confidence votes for bills that should not be subject to such votes and should be more consensual. They sneak them into the budget to ensure that there is no opposition. Then they criticize us for being too slow.

I think that if anyone should be calling their methods into question, it is the government members.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to take a moment to commend the work of my colleague from Mirabel.

The government often accuses the member for Mirabel of levelling harsh criticism. When we take a closer look, we see that he is a model of co-operation. He is a champion of collaboration. Through this bill, he managed to get the government to add phosphate to the list of critical minerals, which will ensure that Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean has an industry that is as promising as the forestry and aluminum industries.

When the member for Mirabel says that studying bills of this magnitude takes time, he is absolutely right.

I would like him to tell us what else could have been amended, what else could have been improved if he had more time.

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

Madam Speaker, we could have worked on the fact that the government, as I said, decided to pick the winners of the accelerated capital cost allowance.

The government says that we need to be able to override any legislation to create regulatory sandboxes, because we want innovation but we never know where it might happen. When it comes to issuing growth-related accelerated capital cost allowances, however, the government says it knows exactly where to turn, and it is always oil.

Albertans have never had to fight in the streets to get tax credits for dirty oil. The tax credits came right away. In our case, for phosphate, it took a high-level diplomatic effort to have it included.

In the end, what did we do? I spoke of amendments, which no one can say is not constructive. Every morning I read a butterfly sticker as I was instructed by the member for Lac-Saint-Jean. It is on the mirror in my office, and below it is an inscription telling me to never forget who I work for. Every time that we worked on a clause of this bill, I was working for Quebeckers, for the people back home. It produced some results, but we lacked the means to work as we had hoped.

The last-minute reversal of the budget timeline, with no advance notice, is very hard to accept.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague from Mirabel a question.

The member for Winnipeg North said that we have had plenty of time to study this omnibus bill, which is over 600 pages long. However, first reading was on November 18, and then we had the Christmas break. We did not have time to properly study all the sections and each very complicated provision, particularly those concerning high-speed rail.

Does my colleague share my view that we have not had enough time to properly study this bill?

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

Madam Speaker, our friend from Winnipeg North is very likeable, but he makes it sound as though we all have to belong to the Prime Minister's fan club, and the moment we disagree with the budget measures, we are being obstructionist.

The budget timeline was moved up. It is not uncommon to see budgets that, given that they were tabled in the fall, would have passed in March or April. That is why there is a notice of ways and means motion, why the tax measures apply, and why we are voting on the estimates. It was well done. For specific measures that fall under other departments, we needed time, but we have not had that time yet. We have been faster than the government could have hoped for in its wildest dreams. Government members are still rising to express their displeasure. Had we passed it the day after it was tabled, we would have been criticized for not sleeping the night before.

Come on; we may be in the opposition, but we are still elected, and we still have a job to do and a role to play. We need only look at what is happening around the world, in the United States, and in many places where institutions are being dismantled. In those places they could only dream of having an opposition like the one we have here to do the work that we are doing.

Beyond the rhetoric, the government should recognize that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora—Kiiwetinoong, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to make a comment for the hon. member's consideration.

One of the top issues I hear across northwestern Ontario is with respect to the rising cost of living, in particular the cost of food. We know that Canada has the highest grocery price inflation of the G7 countries. People are looking for a plan in this budget to cut taxes, cut inflationary spending and bring down the deficit in order to bring down the cost of living. Instead, we see the exact opposite, so the question I often hear is why the Liberals are going forward with $90 billion of new spending and a $78-billion deficit, which will only drive up the cost of living at a time when so many people are struggling to get by.

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

Madam Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to say the following. Once again, the government has completely changed the budget time frame. It announced a $78-billion deficit in the fall. Since then, the Liberals have realized that people who could not afford groceries needed a cheque. Another $4 billion was added between when the budget should have been tabled and when it was actually tabled. We may now be looking at a $83-billion deficit. Not a single parliamentarian here knows the true figure for the deficit, because the Minister of Finance and National Revenue has decided, once again, to dodge the issue, to push public servants and to move too quickly, with all the unintended consequences that may entail.

My colleague's comment clearly demonstrates that.

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

Madam Speaker, first off, let me comment on the previous speaker's concerns. I was trying to quickly find the quote on this by the managing director of the IMF, a very important world organization. This is what the managing director had to say about Canada:

Both Germany and Canada recognize that in this very testing time, they need to use their fiscal space.

She continued:

In the case of Canada, the Canadian authorities have been very decisive to take action in the context of changing relations with their main trading partner. And one of these actions is indeed to reform—modernize the budget framework by...separat[ing] operating expenses in the budget from investment—that ability to then focus strategically on investment[s] that are progrowth, that can lift up productivity.

That was back in October.

I say that because it is important for us to recognize that, as of today, the Prime Minister has been elected for less than one year. Conservatives ask why we did not present a budget in the late spring. Election day was April 28. The Prime Minister and the government, I would argue, made a wise decision to put the budget off to the fall and reset the framework so all future budgets will be presented in the fall. It helps Canadians in terms of economic growth by supporting the beginning of the construction season, for example, among many other things. I would suggest that it has been widely accepted. As a provincial MLA, I remember having a desire to have the provincial budgets presented in the spring and the federal budgets presented in the fall. We finally have a Prime Minister who understands the benefit of doing so.

I raise that because of the question I asked the member from the Bloc. We need to go back to last fall, when the budget implementation bill was introduced. Opposition members had a choice. They did not have to wait until the new year, 2026, to allow it to pass it at second reading. There was opportunity for the official opposition and the Bloc party to pass it at second reading last fall. Nothing prevented them from doing that. Rather, we saw filibustering on the floor of the House.

That is one of the reasons that last fall, I stood in my place and suggested that the opposition agree to sit until midnight for a couple of weeks, if their concern was having more debate in the chamber. Not one government member disagreed with that idea. It was only opposition members who disagreed with it. It was not that they needed more debate on the budget implementation bill but that they did not want it to go to committee. If they had allowed it to go to committee and worked with the government House leader in a co-operative way as opposed to filibustering and preventing legislation from passing last fall, then maybe the committee could have had more opportunity to have more detailed discussions.

For those who say it could never have been enough, standing committees operate on their own. If members were concerned about the high-speed rail, the standing committee would have been able to conduct its own study on the issue. Instead, collectively, the opposition members found it easier to point fingers at the government and blame it for their inability to do what I would suggest they should have done last fall.

Yes, we have a very aggressive, proactive Prime Minister who has goals set for Canada in terms of building Canada strong. He made that commitment back during the last federal election, and this budget implementation bill is a major part of that. That means, as a legislature, we have to be prepared to move maybe a little more quickly than some might like, but it does not mean that there has to be less accountability. We still have a Prime Minister who is committed to ensuring accountability and transparency, and that is something we will continue to push for.

If members are suggesting that we should have more time to debate, it is not the government that prevents that. Members will often say that Liberals are filibustering something at the committee stage. I have not necessarily been at all the committees, but I would suggest that maybe we look at what motion was presented that might have caused the government some issues or concerns. That might be one of the reasons we see some filibustering taking place.

Equally, we see filibustering from opposition members, I would suggest. That is one of the reasons I would love to see changes to our Standing Orders that would better facilitate members who really want to get into the nuts and bolts of a wide spectrum of issues. We have over 20 standing committees in the House of Commons. I would suggest to members that there are lots of substantive issues. If committees want to debate and discuss those issues, there are plenty of opportunities for that, but when members try to come to the floor to say they have not had enough opportunity for debate, I have a tough time accepting that, especially on this particular piece of legislation.

That is because we need to remember that there was unanimous consent. The reason we are at the stage we are at today is that every member of Parliament actually agreed to have it go through this process. Do not get me wrong. I am grateful. In the last little while, we have seen some encouraging signs, coming particularly from the official opposition. I am grateful for that.

Let me go back to the quote I made reference to, in terms of what we have actually been able to do as a government within one year. To reflect on that, less than a year ago, we had an election. I am very grateful to the residents of Winnipeg North personally, in the sense that I have been one of their representatives for a number of years: five elections at the provincial level and now six elections at the federal level. One of the things that inspire me, besides my constituents, is the Prime Minister and the way in which he believes the government needs to move forward. I concur with the Prime Minister and the general attitude in terms of why we need to take a team Canada approach to build a strong Canada.

From day one, that is in fact what we have seen. We have seen a Prime Minister focused and concentrated on working with Canadians, in particular our premiers, territorial leaders and indigenous leaders. That is one of the reasons we have Bill C-5, the One Canadian Economy Act, which was supported and actually passed back in June, shortly after the election. The Prime Minister has met with all the premiers on numerous occasions. We can, in fact, recognize that working together we can accomplish a great deal.

We have the Major Projects Office that was established in Calgary, with the first five projects having been approved. Think of the investment, estimated to be $60 billion, with a six and a zero. By working with the different stakeholders, we were able to achieve that.

This is not to mention the second announcement that came out sometime between September and November. I think it was closer to November. Those additional projects enhanced the total potential investment through those major projects to over $125 billion. I think it is closer to $150 billion. That is investing in Canada. It is supporting the people of Canada in every region, whether it is LNG in the province of British Columbia, copper in areas like Saskatchewan or nuclear power in the province of Ontario.

We can talk about the port of Montreal. We can talk about initiatives and ideas that are being promoted through major projects in every region of the country. This is what the Liberal members of our caucus have been working on because we believe in Canada. We know investing in projects of this nature will grow Canada's economy and that is what this should be all about: creating jobs, creating opportunities and building a stronger and healthier country.

We see that in terms of the major projects, but it is not just the major projects. Let us take a look at some of the areas we have reinforced or put in for the very first time. I was very proud when the Prime Minister and the government made the announcement that we are making permanent the national school food program. That was a very important step. Making that permanent sure made me feel good because I know the children of Canada, 400,000 children in particular, are going to benefit from that particular program.

That is an issue that I have seen first-hand as a parliamentarian going back as far as 1988 when we had individuals like Sharon Carstairs, who was the leader of the Liberal Party in the Manitoba legislature, talking about how children cannot learn on an empty stomach. We now have a prime minister and a government that have made the commitment to make it a permanent program, working with provinces and territories.

We then have the dental care program being reinforced, and millions of Canadians are being served by that particular program. Our new Prime Minister and government have said we are going to continue to support that program, just like we are going to continue to support the pharmacare program. Never before have we invested as much money, real dollars, in health care as we are doing today. It continues to grow.

When we talk about infrastructure expenditures, there is even a pot of money put there to encourage capital growth in our health care system. I would love to see the Seven Oaks General Hospital get its emergency room. I can say that, in the province of Manitoba, the new premier talked about it in the last provincial election. There is now a pot of money that he could tap into, which the federal government is providing. Those types of health supports and the dialogue and discussions that are taking place around personal home care, hospice care and mental illness are all important issues that I believe we are continuing to commit to and move forward with. That is why we are investing the number of health care dollars that we are.

I want to go back to another question I posed earlier this morning to members opposite. If we listen to what the Conservative Party members are saying, one should be a little concerned about what their policy is on growth and on supporting the economy. I asked the member for Calgary Centre if he supports the agreement, the MOU between Alberta and the Government of Canada, the entire MOU. I would have figured that this was a pretty soft question. It is an easy question. The answer should have been yes, but instead he starts questioning whether or not the Premier of Alberta knows what she is talking about.

[An hon. member]

Oh, is that what he was saying?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely, it was. The member can listen to it.

He was questioning the Alberta premier and the Canadian Prime Minister and whether the MOU they signed was of any real value. It is interesting that even the far-right Conservatives here are starting to criticize the Premier of Alberta. They opposed the MOU. On the one hand, they say they want pipelines, and then on the other hand, they do not support the MOU in Alberta. That was the one question I asked.

I asked another question about the high-speed train in Quebec and Ontario, and the member did not actually answer the question, but he addressed it in his speech. He did not answer the question. Apparently, he ran out of time and could not address it because he got so involved in why it was that he does not support the MOU. In his speech, as with other Conservatives, we get the impression that they do not support that because the question I asked him was very simple: Does the Conservative Party support high-speed rail?

On the one hand, the Conservatives do not like what we are doing and proposing with the Premier of Alberta and Alberta on the pipelines issue. They do not support that. Then when it comes to high-speed rail, again, they do not support it. They should be more honest and straightforward with the people of Ontario and Quebec in particular. This is a major project.

I look at the Conservatives in terms of economic development, and a good example is the Infrastructure Bank, which is referenced in the legislation we are debating today. I am still waiting for one Conservative member to stand in his or her place and say that they support the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I have never seen one. I have seen plenty of them, a lot of them, say they do not support the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I would encourage each and every one of us to skip the Conservative spin on it and do a Google search. The members all know how to use Google, I assume. If they do a Google search and look at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, what they will find is that there is literally tens of billions of dollars' worth and many projects that have been completed. Every region of the country has benefited from the Canada Infrastructure Bank, but every Conservative stands up and says it is a bad idea to have the Canada infrastructure program.

Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, I can tell the House, whether it is the Prime Minister or any member of the Liberal caucus, we believe in Canadians. We understand the importance of investing in infrastructure. We are not going to travel around Canada and say Canada is broken. Why? It is because Canada is the best country in the world to call home. I only wish some of the Conservatives would understand that, appreciate that and start talking about the benefits of being in Canada and calling it home, as opposed to always trying to give the false impression that Canada is broken.

There is a lot within this budget. There has been a great deal since the last federal election. We are going to continue to move forward to build Canada strong.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the volume of the member opposite's speech. With respect to the budget, one of the things I am hearing in my riding that people did not like was that the government put the Canada pension plan in the budget as an asset of the government. That is not an asset of the government. That is money that people and their employers have paid into it, which they are expecting to get back. They are worried that the government is going to do with it what it does with everything else, which is spread the money all over the world except where Canadians need it the most.

Why did the government do that when it is against Canadian accounting principles?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am not going to concede that it is against Canadian accounting principles. I have more confidence in the Prime Minister of Canada, who has been the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England. He has impeccable economic credentials. We can contrast that to the leader of the Conservative Party, but it is probably better if I just leave it at that. I believe in the budget implementation bill in its entirety. There are many aspects of it that I could have talked about that are really there to support Canadians.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have repeatedly pointed out the lack of consistency in the budget regarding the tax credits that will be given to the oil and gas sector. The member for Winnipeg North is trying to tell us that this is the best thing since sliced bread.

However, one of his colleagues does not believe this. Just this week, on a podcast, the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie said that he has had many meetings with people from the oil and gas sector and that, each time, he had serious doubts about whether carbon capture and storage will be achieved. The member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, who is a former environment minister and former minister of Canadian identity and culture, even said that oil companies spend more on advertising than on their emissions reductions strategies. Not only that, but the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie says that the greenwashing that the government has just allowed directly responds to what the oil companies want.

What does the member for Winnipeg North think of his colleague's remarks?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, let me suggest to the member that as a political entity in the House, it would appear at times that the only party that truly believes in sustainable development is in fact the party that happens to be in government today. We have, on the one hand, the Bloc, which wants to shut down all of oil. We then have the Conservatives, who say one thing, until it comes to dealing with things like the MOU with the Province of Alberta, to try to give the impression that they support oil pipelines.

At the end of the day, it is about sustainable development. We can have a healthy environment as we continue to grow the economy and we can actually improve our environment. I believe we are on the right track.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask my hon. colleague if he could expand on the latter question he answered. I have listened to a lot of debates in the House about governments and who has the best record in providing the infrastructure needed to support Alberta and Saskatchewan's energy industry. I believe that our government has been the only one that has actually delivered substantive infrastructure that has addressed the issue, which simply was never addressed by the former Conservative government.

Could the member expand on the record of the two?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the question, especially from one of my Atlantic colleagues, because I can remember having discussions with some of my Atlantic colleagues in regard to the potential of legislation we passed that recognized wind and waves and how that could be converted into energy.

I believe it was two provinces, Newfoundland and Labrador along with, I think, Nova Scotia. Do not quote me on it. I can say there was a great buzz about the future of clean energy production that was coming from the east coast. The Conservatives actually voted against the legislation. It is the “we like to give a false impression” attitude that the Conservative Party of Canada has. In reality, when it comes to the environmentally sound economic development that we have seen literally from coast to coast to coast, they are found wanting. We are going to continue to move forward.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make sure this is on the record, because the hon. member for Winnipeg North said clearly that everyone in the House was in favour of the process we are taking now because the motion received unanimous consent. The people who put it forward at that moment knew full well that I would object but that I was travelling with the Prime Minister to Tumbler Ridge. That is a choice I am very honoured to have made, and I am grateful to the Prime Minister for making it possible for all opposition party members to be on that flight. I did not know it would be to my disadvantage in saying no to the process we are now going through regarding the omnibus budget bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I believe the leader of the Green Party made the right decision to go to Tumbler Ridge. I would not question that particular decision.

In that situation, she was likely the only member of Parliament who did not support the process, because all other members of Parliament clearly supported it. If we had not had the unanimous consent motion, the filibustering would, in all likelihood, have continued. That would have been unfortunate, not unfortunate for the Liberal Party but unfortunate for Canadians.

There are benefits that Canadians deserve. The Prime Minister made commitments in the last election. One of the ways we are delivering on those commitments is through the budget. I, for one, am glad that it is finally coming to an end so we can deliver for Canadians.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of the Atlantic coast, just today we learned that LNG was brought up all the way to Canada from Australia. What happened to the incredible LNG that Canada has, and the opportunity to take care of ourselves? It is Canada first, remember?

Which does the member across the floor think is more environmentally friendly: shipping LNG all the way up from Australia or bringing it across our own nation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we can think about this: Canada gets a new Prime Minister and 70 new Liberal members of Parliament, and a few months later, we make a major project announcement in B.C. regarding LNG. I see that as a positive thing.

I was in a discussion just the other day, and we were actually talking about the Port of Churchill and saying that maybe it could play a role in LNG distribution. The Prime Minister, the government and, I can assure the member opposite, every single Liberal MLA understands and appreciates the importance of sustainable development. We want to build the strongest, healthiest economy in the G7. That is the goal that has been established.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, the member for Winnipeg North did not answer my question. He said we want to shut down all of oil. That is not an answer.

We never suggested shutting down the oil sector. What we are saying is that the federal government should not submit to the industry's will and use Quebeckers' money to give very generous tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration. That is not all. A Liberal member said this is a crock.

I would like the member to comment on that. What does he think of the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who does not believe in carbon capture and sequestration strategies? I do not want to hear him say that we want to shut down the oil and gas sector.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the reason the member opposite did not get a very specific answer is that I do not know offhand the very specific answer. That is why I generalized by indicating that, at the end of the day, I do believe there are opportunities for us to grow, whether with clean energy or fossil energy, at this point in time. There are the ways in which, as a government, we have to make some difficult decisions. It is important that we make those decisions if it is in the best interest of Canadians as a whole, and that includes the issue of economic growth and the environmental concerns.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

It is with great honour that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

The bill is massive, over 600 pages long, and I have even heard some of my colleagues across the aisle call it a big, beautiful bill. These large bills, known as omnibus bills, often carry a lot of the government's priorities in a single document, including things that make it virtually unsupportable. When in opposition, the Liberals condemned the practice of omnibus bills, only for them to put forward exactly the same thing. It is unfortunate that the Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth. On one hand, the Liberals constantly criticized the Conservatives in the House for putting forward large bills, then on the other hand, they do exactly the same thing.

Given the size of the bill, I find it shocking that it missed the mark on addressing so many key issues. One of the biggest issues affecting every Canadian, which I will be drawing attention to, is the cost of groceries. Not only does Bill C-15 not address the rising cost of food, but the out-of-control spending in this omnibus bill would actually make food inflation worse.

Like so many Canadians struggling to make ends meet, I remember what life was like 10 years ago, before the Liberals took over. We had a prosperous economy that weathered the 2008 economic crisis, and a growing, stable middle class. At the time, I was working as a construction electrician, and my wife and I raised our three teenagers. If members have had the pleasure of feeding teenagers, they know that they can eat and that they eat a lot. I used to joke with my kids and tell them that I would be able to afford a brand new truck when they moved out with the money I would save from how much they ate.

In those days, Canada was doing well. Wages were high and steadily increasing. The cost of living was manageable, and most Canadians could even brag that we had a higher standard of living than Americans did. Unfortunately, those days seem to be long in the rear-view mirror. We are now seeing headlines in The Globe and Mail such as “Out of nowhere, Canada became poorer than Alabama. How is that possible?” It is shocking to think about it in these terms, but after a decade of economic vandalism by the Liberal government, this is where we are at.

Food banks in the country are seeing an unprecedented rise in usage. National food bank organizations, like Food Banks Canada, have sounded the alarm, highlighting that just last month there were 2.2 million food bank visits across Canada. That is double the monthly food bank usage recorded just six years ago. It is clear that the crisis in our food banks is only growing.

Young families looking to make ends meet while also providing nutritious meals for their family are feeling squeezed by rising costs. Just since the last election, the price of produce like peppers and lettuce is up more than 40%. The price of beef is up more than 27%. The price of baby formula has risen 13%. Canadians cannot keep up, and the rampant spending found in government policies like those in Bill C-15 will only make matters worse.

Back in the day, I used to enjoy working overtime because I knew that when I put in a little extra effort, it meant we would be able to afford something extra for our family, like a new TV, some furniture, a home renovation or just something nice that was outside the family budget. Now, after 10 years of the Liberal government's economic mismanagement, those days are gone. My friends in the trades tell me that they need to work overtime just to make ends meet. I cannot stress enough the word “need”. The fact that a good-paying construction job does not even give Canadian families enough money to make ends meet is a travesty, and the government should be ashamed that it has let the cost of living crisis get so out of control.

A family's rent or mortgage used to be the biggest monthly expense, but now groceries are quickly becoming that. This is a direct result of Liberal deficit spending and debt accumulation driving down the value of our dollar and increasing the cost of literally everything Canadians buy. This is not a difficult concept to grasp: If a country owes more money, it prints more money, and when governments print more money, the dollar is worth less to investors.

Government members will tell us that it is not our fault and that it is the result of global economic challenges, but 70% of all the food that Canadians consume comes from right here in Canada. That is not a global economic problem; it is a Liberal government policy problem. This is not to mention that other countries are weathering global economic challenges better than we are, rather than using them as an excuse to ignore rising costs.

As I mentioned earlier, Canadians know what it was like when the economic crisis hit in 2008. Our government of the day did not make excuses. It took action, spurred the economy and came out of the crisis better than most.

Last weekend, I was sitting down with an electrician friend of mine. He said to me that he was having trouble making ends meet. I was floored. He is well-established in our trade, has a good-paying job, is married with two kids and has been living in his home for five years. He shared with me that he remembers shopping with his wife when they first moved into their home. Back then, one could get a shopping cart full of groceries and feed a family of four for $250.

The grocery store he went to used to offer a promotion that if someone spent $250 or more, they would get a free gift. He told me that many times when they were at the till after getting everything they needed to feed their family, his wife would have him run around to grab a couple more things so they could qualify for the free item. Their cart was full of good, healthy, nutritious food, including meat, vegetables and all the things a growing family needs, plus a few extra goodies they did not need but could afford. He says that now, after buying groceries and paying their utilities, there is no money left at the end of the month for savings, extras or even emergencies.

This story is all too familiar for so many families in Canada today, but the reality is that it never used to be like this. People are working two or three jobs just to get by, and those who cannot make it are forced to food banks.

The budget does not do anything to give hope to Canadians, and the massive spending will continue to increase food prices and push more Canadian families toward financial insecurity. We have the ability to feed Canadians good food at affordable prices. As I said, the vast majority of the food we consume is produced domestically and is not impacted by global economic instability, regardless of what the government claims.

I know what I will hear from my colleagues across the aisle. They will argue that global factors are responsible for rising costs and that Bill C-19 would provide relief for Canadians. To some extent that is true, and that is why we are helping fast-track it. It would provide much-needed relief to Canadians who have gone through so much, but it is still a half measure. Canadians need more help, and the Liberals can start by lowering spending and reducing the burden of inflation on Canadians. When the government put forward both Bill C-15 and Bill C-19, it took one step forward and two steps back.

Even my parents are struggling with the rising cost of food. A retired principal and a schoolteacher on a fixed pension, they are truly feeling the squeeze. The skyrocketing cost of food is quickly eroding their standard of living. They worked hard their whole life, educated the next generation and saved to set themselves up to enjoy retirement, only to have their standard of living taken away by the Liberal government's economic mismanagement.

When the government spends during an inflation crisis, it adds fuel to the fire, and in turn, goods cost more. My parents, as well as many seniors, are having trouble keeping up with the rapidly rising cost of living, and that is taking away from their lifestyle that they worked so hard for their whole life. We owe it to the people who had a hand in building our great country to do right by them and keep our economy in check. At the end of the day, the reality is that empty promises and Liberal slogans will not put food on the table for struggling Canadian families.

Life can be hard enough. The government should stop making it harder for working families, and instead give them a hand. Therefore, I am calling on the Liberals to do the right thing: Rein in their out-of-control spending and work to lower the inflationary burden on Canadian families.

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

Mr. Speaker, on February 17 of this year, Conservatives sent out an email to thousands of Canadians. It said that the Prime Minister would be judged on prices in the grocery stores and that “Since then, food bank usage has doubled”. That is an outright untruth. The email then talks about food inflation and gives four examples. The number one example is a 37.4% increase for coffee. The reason coffee is expensive has more to do with the weather in Brazil than it does with Canadian policy, but these are the types of emails the Conservatives send out to get people upset.

Why did the Conservatives not tell Canadians that we have Bill C-19, the groceries and essentials benefit act, that is going to make—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that 70% of our food comes from Canada and coffee does not. Why is inflation on the 70% so high?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Elmwood—Transcona's excellent speech gave some excellent examples from the people of Winnipeg. This is in contrast to the speech of the speaker previous.

Let me ask a follow-up to the question my colleague was just asked, because we know that the Prime Minister was very clear that Canadians should judge him on the cost of groceries at the grocery store, and we now know that Canada is the food inflation capital of the G7.

I want to give my colleague a chance to elaborate a bit more, because as he indicated, we know 70% of the food is produced right here, and we know that 90% of agribusinesses have said that the industrial carbon tax and the Liberal bureaucracy are things that are adding to the cost of food and making those grocery prices higher. Maybe he can comment more on that.

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives have put forth many policy proposals on what would make food prices better. As my hon. colleague mentioned, the industrial carbon tax on farmers has a big effect on the cost of food and on the people who are producing the food right here in this country, such as cattle farmers.

Why is the price of beef so high? It is because there is an industrial carbon tax. There is also the food packaging tax and the other Liberal hidden taxes. We have proposed that the Liberals remove them to bring down the cost of food, but obviously that is not in the budget and they are refusing to do that.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives continue to use imaginary food taxes. My question is a follow-up to the member. He himself honestly said that coffee is not produced in Canada. He said that. Why then would the Conservatives use the fact that coffee costs 37.4% more as their lead item to get people upset? Why are they saying that when they know that Canada has very little, if anything at all, to do with it? It has more to do with Brazil and weather.

Does the member support these type of emails that spread misinformation? Why do Conservatives not say to Canadians that they are going to support Bill C-19, the grocery and essentials benefit act, which would make groceries more affordable?

[Colin Reynolds, Conservative, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the hon. member across the aisle wants to talk about coffee, which really just feeds his narrative.

Why do we not talk about beef? Beef is made right here in Canada, and it is 27% higher. Why does beef cost so much money? It is because of the industrial carbon tax and the packaging tax. We have beef right in Manitoba. Why does it cost so much?

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to talk about Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

This was my first time participating in the review of a budget implementation bill as a federal MP and member of the Standing Committee on Finance. This is a 638-page omnibus bill with 606 clauses that amend hundreds of Canadian laws. This bill includes measures ranging from raising the debt ceiling to repealing the digital services tax.

Throughout the study, it was clear that our work as parliamentarians mainly consists of making choices, choices that improve the quality of life of Canadians today but also the quality of life of our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren. Choices must be made. We have to determine which measures to include, we have to choose between an inflationary deficit and a balanced budget, and as part of Bill C-15, we also have to decide whether to keep power in the hands of Canadians or hand it over to Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister here in Ottawa.

In short, the Liberals tabled a bill granting cabinet ministers extraordinary powers. There were no provisions for consultations, guardrails, parliamentary approval or transparency. My Conservative colleague from Newmarket—Aurora explained this clearly. It is quite shocking that the Government of Canada thought it was appropriate to give itself such an extreme amount of power. Canadians made it clear that the Liberals' choice was an undemocratic power grab.

It is important to note that the Liberals have already proven that they are bad with power. When they have the power to award government contracts, they award them to their friends, which is what happened with GC Strategies and ArriveCAN. Members will recall that the ArriveCAN contract was initially valued at $80,000, but it ended up costing $60 million. When they have the power to upgrade a computer system, they go over budget. That is the scenario playing out now with the Cúram software. It was supposed to cost $1.6 billion, but the budget is now $6.6 billion. This is outrageous. The project is $5 billion over budget.

I think it is important to acknowledge the choices that the Liberals are making. They are choosing to concentrate power in the hands of the Liberal elite in Ottawa, far from Parliament, far from local communities, and far from Canadians.

The Conservatives made a different choice. Under the leadership of my amazing colleague from Newmarket—Aurora, we introduced a number of amendments to place checks and balances on the power of Liberal elites and to ensure that Canadians ultimately have the power to curb government overreach.

With the amendments that were adopted, there now has to be a 30-day public consultation period before any exemption is granted. Dual approval from a cabinet minister and the President of the Treasury Board is now required. The government must table a report to Parliament within 90 days of any exemption and publish exemptions within 30 days to ensure transparency.

The Conservatives put guardrails in place to limit the Liberals' power and to ensure that exemptions serve Canadians' best interests. Let us not forget that every parliamentarian here is here to serve Canadians' interests.

As I mentioned, Bill C‑15 is about choices the government makes or does not make. During the committee's study of Bill C‑15, I had the opportunity to question several ministers about issues that, while important to my constituents, Quebeckers and all Canadians, are not included in this bill.

Bill C‑15 packs a considerable amount of content into its 638 pages, but it does not include measures to support regions of Quebec that rely on temporary foreign workers to fill vacant jobs. Those regions are struggling because of the Liberals' poorly designed immigration plan.

Page 96 of the budget states, in black and white:

The government recognises the role temporary foreign workers play in some sectors of the economy and in some parts of the country. To that end, the 2026-2028 Immigration Levels Plan will consider industries and sectors impacted by tariffs and the unique needs of rural and remote communities.

To reiterate, it states that the plan “will consider industries and sectors impacted by tariffs and the unique needs of rural and remote communities”. To be clear, this is from the Liberal budget; these are the words of the finance minister and the Prime Minister.

My riding and many parts of Quebec are facing a labour shortage, with an unemployment rate of less than 5.5%. Businesses are already facing an inflationary crisis and unjustified American tariffs. Now these businesses, which rely on temporary foreign workers to thrive and stimulate the economies of Quebec and Canada, must face this new challenge and the restriction on economic workers that is being imposed by the Liberals.

These people contribute to our economic development and have become part of our communities. Their children go to school, and their partners work for other businesses in the community, village or town. At the Standing Committee on Finance, I asked the minister three times whether he was in favour of a grandfather clause for temporary foreign workers in regions where the unemployment rate is less than 5.5%.

Three times, the minister refused to answer, but do members know what he said? He said that he agreed with my arguments and that temporary foreign workers who were already here and already part of their community, who had learned the job in their company and who were contributing to our economic development were important for the regions of Quebec. In that case, why will he not agree to include a grandfather clause?

The Liberal budget clearly indicates that the government will take into account the specific needs of communities in the regions. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister are happy to say what Canadians want to hear in their budget but that they are not willing to take measures to actually support the Canadian economy and strengthen our communities.

Since Bill C-15 is an omnibus bill, it contains many measures, but I think it is important to remember that Bill C-15 implements the measures of a Liberal budget with a $78-billion deficit. That is $78 billion in new debt that our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will have to pay. It should be noted that when the Liberals came to power 10 years ago, the country's debt was $700 billion. After 10 years of Liberal mismanagement, the debt is now $1.4 trillion.

Although we approve of many measures in the budget, I disapprove of just as many. The Liberal government has continued to pursue its policy of endless deficit spending. It is extremely important to be vigilant when making budgetary choices. Every dollar added to the debt contributes to inflationary pressure, which makes essential items such as groceries, transportation and housing more expensive. Let us not forget that every additional dollar of debt means higher debt servicing costs for future generations of Canadians. That is $55 billion in interest on the debt that we are paying and that our grandchildren will also pay.

In closing, as parliamentarians, we have to make tough choices to better serve Canadians. However, we must keep one thing in mind: The decisions that we make today will affect future generations, and we owe them respect.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I also represent a rural region and my riding is also experiencing a labour shortage. I know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to put an end to the temporary foreign worker program. In my riding, it is really important to bring in people from different parts of the world to offset the labour shortage. My colleague spoke of a grandfather clause for people who are already here. I would support that. I want to know what my colleague would do to address the labour shortage in his riding through the measures set out in the bill.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about regions where the unemployment rate is below 5.5%. There will be a grandfathering provision to allow temporary foreign workers to regularize their status within five years and obtain permanent residency so they can continue to work in our businesses, right here, and help develop Quebec and Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of serving at the Standing Committee on Finance. My Conservative colleague is no doubt aware that Bill C-15 will create two classes of citizens and abjectly take away the rights of people whose property will be expropriated as part of the high-speed rail project.

However, when Bill C-15 was being studied at committee, my Conservative colleague voted to continue to strip the rights of those whose properties will be expropriated. Yesterday, when amendments were being voted on at report stage, the Conservatives hid eight members in the lobby to ensure that the high-speed rail project would pass, even though it violates the rights of the people whose land will be expropriated.

I would like my colleague, whose riding is full of farming communities, to tell me what he has to say to the farmers of Quebec who saw all this happen.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a great deal of respect for him and I enjoy working with him.

I am fortunate to have the opportunity to give speeches. For example, this evening, I will be speaking before a chamber of commerce in my riding, and several mayors and farmers will be present. When I give a speech, I always say that we are privileged to have farm products on our plates morning, noon and night. Without our farmers to do this important work seven days a week, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, we would not be able to function. I have a great deal of respect for our farmers.

As for the matter my colleague mentioned, we can discuss it together.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that great speech.

I have four grandchildren. He spoke about grandchildren and the impact that the budget will have on the future. Could he elaborate on that?

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to let you in on a secret. My greatest dream is to be a grandpa, and I hope that this happens in the next few years.

At the same time, I have to say that I am worried when I see that the national deficit has doubled over the last 10 years. When I see that the interest on the debt is equal to the total amount of GST collected across the country in one year, and that the GST will be used just to pay down the debt, I am worried for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

My hope is that the Conservatives will eventually be able to cross the floor and form government in order to manage the country effectively and efficiently for our grandchildren.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to point out to my colleague that he spoke at length about the temporary foreign worker program, which his leader wants to abolish it. Before criticizing our Liberal colleagues, whom we can criticize all we want on this issue, perhaps he should persuade his leader not to abolish the temporary foreign worker program.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in our Conservative election platform, specifically for the regions of Quebec where the unemployment rate is below 5.5%, there was the possibility of asking for temporary workers to stay. That is part of our election platform for Quebec.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will note upfront that I will be splitting my time.

It is always an honour, of course, to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the great people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.

At second reading of this bill, I spoke about affordability, housing, groceries and mortgages, but this afternoon I want to speak about something deeper, the foundation beneath it all: our economy. If a country cannot build, cannot attract investment, cannot grow productivity, then everything else becomes harder. That is exactly where Canada finds itself today.

Budget 2025 would add $321 billion to the national debt over the next five years. It would spend $55.6 billion on debt interest next year alone, which is more than we spend on health transfers to the provinces and more than the GST revenue collected. For all of this spending, Canada's GDP growth is projected at just 1.1%, the second-lowest in the G7. That is according to the OECD. Canada is on track to have the worst economic growth of all 38 advanced economies through 2060. It is dead last.

Canada's business investment per worker remains significantly below those of its peer OECD economies, and the gap is widening. Canadian firms invest less in machinery, technology and innovation per employee than their counterparts in other advanced economies. At the same time, new capital per worker in Canada is only about 66¢ for every dollar seen by workers in other OECD economies, a stark symptom of weaker long-term competitiveness. This is not just a blip. It is a structural decline, and budgets like this do nothing to reverse it.

Eight months ago, Parliament passed Bill C-5. As a member of the transport and infrastructure committee, I stood in the House three times and spoke in support of it. It was sold to Canadians as nation building, a turning point, a faster approvals regime and a new era of major projects, but eight months later what has actually been built? What major project has broken ground because of Bill C-5? What strategic corridor has been accelerated? What transformational piece of infrastructure is visibly under way? Canadians are still waiting.

Meanwhile, in Europe, when governments decided energy security was a national priority, Germany built a major LNG terminal in roughly seven months, Italy built the Genoa bridge in just over a year, Finland completed construction of its Inco facility in about four months, and the Netherlands brought its Eemshaven LNG terminal online in about six months. When these countries decided something mattered, they built it. Here in Canada, we pass bills, we hold press conferences, we have photo ops, and we announce frameworks, but we have not built anything. Eight months after passing Bill C-5, Canadians are still waiting.

In 2023, members of the transport and infrastructure committee conducted a national study on large port infrastructure expansion projects. We toured ports from coast to coast, and we heard clearly that we need faster approvals, greater financial flexibility and the removal of structural bottlenecks. That was three years ago. Today, we are hearing the same complaints. Nothing has changed. The Canada port authorities model is supposed to provide operational independence, yet federal constraints limit agility and competitiveness. They limit the ability to respond to global trade shifts, and we cannot move goods efficiently through our ports if we cannot compete.

The budget talks about investing in infrastructure, including ports and economic corridors, but the actual legislation before us contains no specific reforms to enable Canada's port authorities to operate with true agility or competitiveness. It does not remove constraints, modernize governance or give them new tools to respond faster to shifts in global trade. Even as the government talks about nation building, the bill does nothing to unlock the capacity of our ports.

Let me also talk about steel. Steel is not abstract. Steel is Hamilton. Steel is jobs. Steel is national capacity. In 2024, I filed an Order Paper question asking how much of the federally funded infrastructure in Canada uses Canadian steel. The response came back, and I was astonished to learn that the government did not even track that data. The government could not tell us how much of our own infrastructure spending was using Canadian steel production. That is billions of dollars with no central tracking. If we do not measure it, we cannot manage it.

Unsatisfied with this answer, I took it to committee. I asked the president of Alto how much Canadian steel was going to be used if the project were to proceed. Would it be tracked? Would it be reported? The answer was that it could result in 600,000 tonnes of steel, but we do not produce the right type of steel in Canada. That should not be foreign steel.

I asked the transportation minister if he would make the same commitment, to track not just steel but any Canadian content in all projects under his department. To his credit, he said that he would commit to reporting the volumes, the value and the origin of Canadian materials used in future projects and report that back publicly to Parliament. However, here is the problem. Why did it take pressure through Order Paper questions and committee hearings to get there? Why are we not tracking Canadian content as a standard practice? If we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure, Canadian workers should be part of that story.

Let me offer a contrast. The Hamilton International Airport, which is located in my constituency, is a success story. It is now Canada's largest overnight express cargo airport. In 2024, it handled over 750,000 kilograms of cargo. As a result of private sector commitment to that airport, it was able to secure a long-term investment. It continues to grow. It supports jobs, it strengthens supply chains, and it connects southern Ontario to global markets.

In fact, to give an example, DHL Express operates cargo across the world. Hamilton airport is its fourth-largest-volume facility in the entire world. The largest is in Hong Kong, then Leipzig, Germany, then Cincinnati, Ohio, and then Hamilton, Ontario. That is the result when there is a positive private sector investment that actually creates jobs and success. Completed in 2021, that particular facility met its five-year volumes in one year.

That is what trade-enabling infrastructure looks like. It is succeeding in spite of the endless red tape. Imagine a national infrastructure system that worked with the same real urgency. Imagine if approvals were predictable, if capital felt welcomed, if projects moved from announcement to construction to completion. That is how we reverse this productivity decline in our economy, how we attract investment and how we grow our economy.

Canada should be the easiest place in the world to build responsibly. We have skilled workers. We have resources. We have stable institutions. What we lack is urgency. The budget continues the pattern: high spending, high debt, low growth and no structural reform.

Nearly a year after the government was elected, Canadians still do not see the breakthrough that was promised. As long as investment lags, approvals stall and productivity falls, living standards will continue to erode. Canadians are not asking for miracles. They are asking for a government that understands that prosperity comes from building, producing and competing, not just borrowing and hoping.

Conservatives believe in clearing the bureaucracy that blocks projects, ensuring Canadian workers benefit from Canadian infrastructure, strengthening our ports and trade corridors, restoring fiscal discipline so capital flows back to Canada and rebuilding confidence that this country can once again get things done. On every one of those measures, the budget comes up short.

Ten years ago, Canada was described as having the richest middle class in the world. In fact, commentators noted that in 2014 the Canadian dream had replaced the American dream, after 10 years of Conservative government and strong fiscal management. That was not an accident. That was a result of discipline, investment and policies that rewarded work and encouraged growth. Today, the middle class is feeling squeezed. Stagnation should not be a destiny. With the right leadership, fiscal discipline and a government that understands that prosperity comes from building, Canada can again have the richest middle class in the world. With a new government, it will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a statement the previous speaker made, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. He made the statement that in certain situations, which he described, the Conservatives do not have any problem with renewing temporary work permits.

Can the member give us a clear indication of whether the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was correct in his assessment of the Conservative Party's position, that it is prepared to allow temporary permit workers to remain in Canada after the visas have expired?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak on behalf of my colleague. What I will note, as I said in my speech, is that we had the richest middle class in the world 10 years ago, when we had an economy that was attracting investment from around the world. Prosperity is the answer to all of our issues.

The member opposite is part of a government that said no to Germany and Japan when they came for Canadian LNG. Germany built the facility, as I said in my speech, in seven months, and we lost the opportunity to diversify our trade, create those jobs and steal other jobs for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to something that was said in the previous speech by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

I want to ask my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North a question, because what was said was rather surprising. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska criticized the Liberal government because of measures implemented in the fall of 2024 that led to drastic changes for entrepreneurs and SMEs in Quebec's regions in terms of temporary foreign workers. He says that a grandfather clause must be introduced for people who are already here.

However, the Conservative leader said that temporary foreign workers are the reason young Canadians here are unemployed and cannot find work, so the program should be scrapped.

Does my colleague agree with his leader, or does he agree with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should create prosperity for young Canadians so they can actually have jobs. That is what Canadians had 10 years ago. After 10 years of a Conservative government, youth unemployment was not at the skyrocketing levels we are seeing now, and that is not fair. As well, 10 years ago, the average monthly mortgage payment on the average house in Canada was $1,432. The average rent was $973. Young people could go to school, save up, buy a home and start a family.

That was the Canadian dream. That is why we were the envy of the world and had the richest middle class. That does not exist anymore after 10 years of the Liberals. Conservatives will work to restore that dream and that promise.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can reflect on a report that came out today that says one in four Canadians now works for government, whether that be the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments or the public service.

The member reflected upon the middle class getting weaker. While the government is bloating up and expending, none of these dollars seems to reach everyday Canadians. Can the member reflect upon that in this budget?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because that is the point. The reason we are now among the worst-performing economies in the G7 and the OECD, which we were not 10 years ago, is that we have the lowest private sector investment in our economy in the world. When we do not create the conditions for the private sector to invest here, investment will elsewhere. Capital is global, and we have seen that time and time again.

If we want to make sure we have opportunities for Canadians, we can do better than having one in four working for the government. We can provide excellent opportunities in the private sector so Canadians can prosper, save up, buy a home and live the Canadian dream.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate and discussions on Bill C-15. I would like to focus briefly on the issue of the digital services tax, which I feel is very important, particularly for the cultural and media sectors. We have discussed it at length. I think it is important to highlight the significant consequences of abolishing this tax.

First and foremost, it is important review the context and acknowledge that, in order for the government to address a problem and find solutions to it, the government must first recognize that a problem exists. The government must acknowledge the problem, take note of it, analyze it and then put measures in place to address it and correct it to the greatest extent possible.

That is what this government and governments around the world have done. Take, for example, the OECD, which set up a working group a few years ago to study the issue of digital giants, the so-called GAFAM, and their impact on the public finances of the various countries in which they operate. The OECD looked into this. Many countries, including the European Union and Australia, which we have also talked a lot about, have legislated on tax issues relating to digital giants.

In 2024, Canada took a step in the right direction. Not only did it recognize that there was a situation that warranted its attention, but it also introduced the Digital Services Tax Act. Subsequently, as we know, it introduced the much-talked about digital services tax, a tax aimed at correcting the kind of tax inequity involving multi-billion dollar companies, generally American, that are making a fortune here in Canada by flooding our devices and our cultural market with content. In the vast majority of cases, this content is in no way representative of the cultural fabric of Quebec and Canada and, by extension francophone culture. I am particularly concerned about that.

The purpose of the digital services tax was to address this inequity and bring some fiscal accountability with regard to these businesses. The revenue that could have been generated from this tax was estimated at $7.2 billion over five years. Let us be conservative and say $1 billion, $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion in revenue per year. In our opinion, that was great news, except for the caveat that it was not directly intended to support the cultural and media sectors. Still, that money could have been well spent. It could have been added to the public purse and ultimately used to support those sectors.

We were all there just over a year ago when President Trump returned to the White House in the United States with his rhetoric, threats and tariffs. We saw all of the instability he was causing, not only in his own country, but also here and around the world. We needed some bargaining power. We needed to show Canada's goodwill. To that end, the Prime Minister made what I believe was a highly questionable decision. He decided to bend the knee, take his spine and stick it in a drawer, and do away with the digital services tax, hoping that would make Donald think he was a nice, easygoing, understanding, co-operative guy. He did away with a tax that Donald Trump hates because it penalizes the American companies that provide him with such generous support. Perhaps the Prime Minister thought that Donald would surely be convinced to strike a good deal with his dear friend, the Prime Minister of Canada, and scrap the tariffs. The Prime Minister thought that everything would work out. However, that is not what happened at all. The American President watched him do it. He did not react. He did not bat an eye. He did not lift a finger, and everything continued to go as badly as it had been going for months.

The Prime Minister did not consider that, by abolishing the tax on digital services, he was eliminating a potential revenue stream of over $1 billion per year that could have been used to save the cultural and media sectors of Quebec and Canada. If he had, he might have decided to reinstate it, but no, he decided to let it go.

The government introduced Bill C-15, and we thought that common sense would prevail and that the minister would decide to reinstate the tax, not eliminate it. By retaining this one tool, or the possibility of implementing it, he would have had leverage for his discussions with the American President when it came time to negotiate CUSMA.

At that point, we could have extracted major concessions had we had something worthwhile or a bargaining chip. However, the government decided to abolish that tax.

What does that mean? That means that our media, particularly regional news outlets, remain in the extremely precarious situation that they have been in for years without any glimmer of hope from the government that they might be rescued from their current predicament.

There was a measure proposed by the Bloc Québécois. In addition to preserving the digital services tax and turning it into a levy that would have been used exclusively to save and support the cultural sectors and the media, we asked that electronic news media outlets, namely radio and television, be granted the same tax credit that print media outlets already get. This is something that electronic news media outlets have been actively calling for. Newspaper newsrooms receive a payroll tax credit that gives them a bit of breathing room in an environment that is extremely competitive, extremely volatile and extremely difficult for them financially. Radio and television media are saying that they too have extremely expensive newsrooms to operate and that they should have the same privilege and right.

This is something that these media outlets have long been asking for, and the Bloc Québécois has supported it from the beginning. We even included it in our 2025 election platform. The Liberals refused to listen and rolled out a budget with hundreds of millions of dollars for culture that they have been bragging about, but there is nothing in the budget for these media outlets. The budget does not even include this small, inexpensive measure, this payroll tax credit for radio and television newsrooms. There has been complete radio silence on that front.

We can see that this government lacks the will to truly walk the talk. We hear it saying that the media is important, that news is important, but yet it is failing to implement small, simple measures. It is also failing to implement major measures, like the digital services tax, or DST, which could have been transformed into a levy and would have been extremely beneficial. I would remind the House that this tax would have provided a great deal of support for the cultural and media sectors. When it came time to put these measures in place, once again, the government failed to listen. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because we are missing a great opportunity to help an extremely disadvantaged sector.

In my opinion, there are serious problems with news coverage in regional communities in Quebec and Canada. Companies in the business of delivering regional reporting, of covering our regional realities, are finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Covering only big cities and national and international issues is not enough. We also need coverage of what is happening here at home, of our own realities, of what makes our regions tick, but these companies are finding it increasingly difficult to cover those things. Businesses and media are struggling. They have to make cuts. They have to cut positions, and reporters' positions are often the ones to go.

I was very relieved and pleased to hear CBC's announcement in January and Radio-Canada's more recent announcement about the creation of new journalist positions at regional stations. CBC/Radio-Canada is creating 29 new positions in Quebec and about 30 in the rest of Canada. I think that is good news, obviously, because CBC/Radio-Canada is our public broadcaster, and its mandate is to cover news everywhere, all across the country. However, CBC/Radio-Canada should not be the only media outlet with the means to do that. It should not be the only media outlet available in those parts of the country. People everywhere need diverse news sources.

In closing, I want to come back to the digital services tax. I believe that it was a mistake and an enormous lack of political courage on the government's part not to have kept the tax in place simply because Uncle Donald was not happy with it. At some point, the Liberals need to grow a backbone that is strong enough to withstand anything and that will not turn to jelly when the wind howls a little too much or when Uncle Donald blusters and sends out a mean tweet at two a.m. after a couple of burgers.

It takes courage, and this tax was a show of courage and a willingness to stand up for ourselves. Most of all, it maintained some leverage for the upcoming CUSMA negotiations. However, the Liberals are basically tipping their hand to Donald. We will pay the price at some point, and so will our media.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the importance of consistency, but I am having a hard time understanding. If consistency is really that important, why do people say it is important to invest in infrastructure in Quebec, such as the Magdalen Islands airport runway, the Forillon shipyard in Gaspé and the Exploramer shark pavilion in Saint‑Anne‑des‑Monts? These projects are important to Quebeckers.

There are also housing needs. The federal government and the Government of Quebec have just agreed on a framework for the construction of affordable housing in Quebec. These are priorities for the people my colleague says he wants to represent in the House. However, he is voting against those projects.

I would like to know why he is opposed to them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, even though we have heard the same damn arguments from the start. The Liberals do not seem to have very many other examples with which to counter the Bloc Québécois's arguments, but that is all right. I respect my colleague's points.

I just want to say that, because the federal government was dragging its feet, it took two years to negotiate the housing agreement that my colleague mentioned in his question. It took so long to negotiate that by the time the agreement was finally signed in January, it was too late for Quebec to get the funds to which it was entitled.

The Liberals need to be careful about which examples they choose to give and they should maybe switch things up now and then.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to know whether “damn arguments” is a parliamentary term.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order.

It is hard to say whether that is a parliamentary term. However, it is important that everyone use respectful language in the House.

The hon. member for Drummond is rising on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the word may have been borderline in terms of acceptable language, but regardless, it was unnecessary and my colleague was right to bring it up.

I apologize. I would like to withdraw that word from my response, because it was not at all necessary given the context.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for Drummond and the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the substance rather than the form, unlike some of my colleagues.

I really liked my colleague's speech. Obviously, he focused on something that affects him personally: the vitality of the media and the digital services tax. He is responsible for that file.

I would like my colleague to explain something related to the Prime Minister's famous speech in Davos. Everyone praised him for it. In that speech, he said it was important to stand up to powers that are currently causing more instability in the world. He said it was important to have reliable, secure allies and to stand up to the ones causing instability.

Can my colleague reconcile what was said in Davos and what the government is currently doing with regard to the web giants?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean really hit the nail on the head. I emphasized this point in my speech, but it bears repeating. It is important to stand up for what we believe in, defend our position and back up our words with action. The speech at Davos was inspiring. However, that speech is over, the government is not standing up in the face of adversity and we are no further ahead. The government is not doing more, so it is losing credibility.

I think it shows a lack of courage to say that we need to stand up to adversity and yet come back here and fail to implement a strict regulatory tax framework for multi-billion dollar corporations that are getting rich off the backs of Canadians. There is still time to fix that, though.

There is nothing stopping the Prime Minister from implementing very strict tax measures for all businesses and creating fairness in this market. That has been a long time coming.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the significant investments that are going into Quebec. I am thinking of the port of Montreal. Literally thousands of people are being affected. It is a wonderful development. We now also have the high-speed rail. If we put it in the perspective of investment, these are significant investments, and I believe that the people of Quebec would actually support them.

Could he provide his thoughts on those two issues?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to invest, and that is the federal government's job. It is wonderful to talk about the high-speed rail project. My colleague from Mirabel has been talking about it for weeks. People in his riding and in other ridings that the high-speed train will traverse are concerned, very worried, afraid and angry, and we understand why. I think this is a good example of how the federal government has money but is out of touch when it comes to managing projects. It should hand these projects over to the appropriate authorities. At the very least, it should conduct adequate consultations to prevent tragedies like what happened in 1970 from happening again in Mirabel and to prevent families from being torn apart. It will take generations for people to recover from those brutal expropriations. I believe my colleague from Mirabel has already talked about this at length.

I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for raising this issue, particularly the high-speed rail issue given the current context.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

Our objective with budget 2025 is clear: We want to make Canada's economy stronger and more resilient. The first step is to work on our own economy, here in Canada. After taking office, we started by removing interprovincial trade barriers at the federal level. We introduced a buy Canadian policy in our budget because we know that we have to be our own best customer. The Government of Canada has tremendous purchasing power, and we have to use it to stimulate our economy and support Canadian companies.

In budget 2025, we are also introducing a set of tax incentives to boost productivity. We want to encourage Canadian businesses to invest in new equipment right away. The message we are sending is that now is the time to invest in Canada. We have also enhanced certain incentives, such as the business research and development program. I have visited a number of businesses in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche that are benefiting from this program. It is amazing to see the opportunities, especially when it comes to developing new products and penetrating new markets. Businesses might have a product that meets 90% of a potential customer's needs. Work-integrated research opens up new possibilities.

However, we have heard that the program can be problematic in terms of red tape. In budget 2025, we are addressing these issues. We will improve the program to make it easier for businesses to use, because we want to see businesses spending more time innovating and less time dealing with red tape.

Also, in the budget, we see consistency across the various investments that we are making to meet our priorities, because we are working to link this to our mandate of strengthening the Canadian economy. I will give a few examples.

We are launching Build Canada Homes, an investment of more than $13 billion for the construction of housing here at home. With Build Canada Homes, we will promote the use of Canadian materials, such as softwood lumber. This will help us meet the need for housing while boosting our economy and supporting businesses here at home. It is somewhat the same with the defence industrial strategy. We have committed to significantly increasing defence spending, given the current context. We will do so in a way that supports businesses.

Internationally, strengthening the Canadian economy also involves diversifying our markets. The budget contains various incentives and measures to support Canadian companies looking to break into new markets around the world. The government is working hard to attract foreign investment and sign new trade agreements with countries around the world. In fact, Canada is the only G7 country to have a free trade agreement with every other G7 country. This is just the beginning.

When we talk about supporting innovation to increase productivity, that translates into investments in our regions, including the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. Last week, I had the immense pleasure of announcing up to $1 million in federal government support for three maple syrup producers in my riding through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The funding announced last week will primarily go toward modernizing these maple syrup producers' infrastructure to make it more productive, notably through the purchase of new reverse osmosis systems and automated systems to help detect leaks in the forest. This announcement was particularly important to me because the maple syrup industry is integral to my riding's economy. New Brunswick is the world's second-largest producer of maple syrup, and 80% of the syrup produced in my province comes from Madawaska—Restigouche. This is a direct investment in a key sector of the economy of the rural communities that I represent here in Ottawa.

In addition to the economic benefits, maple syrup is culturally important in my region, as we are very proud of the syrup produced in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. Maple syrup production is also a skill that is passed down from generation to generation. In fact, of the three sugar bushes I visited last week, one was recently handed down to the next generation, and another is run by a father and son. This is a sector that is well established, both economically and culturally, and that is part of the history of the Madawaska—Restigouche riding.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all producers and workers in the industry a successful maple syrup season. We know that preparations are coming to an end. The tapping is almost done, and sugaring season is just around the corner.

I am the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, a riding that is more than 80% francophone. In fact, my riding has the second-highest percentage of francophones outside Quebec.

As the member for Madawaska—Restigouche and an Acadian MP, I consider official languages to be a very important issue. In budget 2025, we are doubling funding for National Acadian Day and making that funding permanent. In addition, we are continuing to implement the action plan for official languages 2023-2028. I would like to remind the House that this plan provides $4.1 billion over five years, which is the largest investment in official languages in Canada's history, even taking inflation into account. No other government has invested as much in supporting official languages in this country. It is a big deal.

This historic investment is having a real impact in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. For example, last year, Canada and New Brunswick signed an agreement for French language instruction that includes $133 million for instruction in both our French-language schools and our immersion schools. In other words, that money is going to schools in my region so that our children in New Brunswick can learn French.

I am also thinking of the $78-million investment announced last summer by the Minister of Health to improve access to French-language health services for francophone communities. Of this $78 million, $14 million is earmarked for the Université de Moncton for training more health professionals in medicine and nursing. In my riding, the Edmundston campus of the Université de Moncton offers a bachelor's degree in nursing. So, the investments we are making here in Ottawa in official languages are helping to train people in the health sector back home in Edmundston.

I am also thinking of the welcoming francophone communities initiative, which aims to help our francophone communities settle newcomers. There are 24 projects across the country, and I am very pleased that two of them are in my riding: the welcoming francophone community of Haut-Saint-Jean and the welcoming francophone community of Kedgwick and Saint-Quentin.

The action plan also includes the community spaces fund, because vibrant and dynamic francophone communities need places to gather. I would like to talk about a project that was funded in my constituency last year through this fund. The Centre Maillet in the Saint-Basile area of Edmundston received $2 million. Work is progressing well, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the Centre Maillet's facelift.

Through the action plan for official languages 2023-2028, we are also investing in a wide range of other areas, such as early childhood education, justice, arts and culture as well as research, to name a few. These are investments we are making here that have a real impact on the vitality of francophone communities across the country, including in Madawaska—Restigouche. I am very proud to be part of a government that is making the largest investment in official languages in Canadian history.

Budget 2025 also includes funding to support arts and culture. Money is earmarked to develop Canada's creative industries and help Canadian talent succeed in an increasingly digital and global marketplace. I will list some of the measures. The building communities through arts and heritage program will receive $21 million. This program supports local festivals, community anniversaries and capital projects initiated by communities.

My riding actually hosts many, many festivals, and dedicated volunteers contribute to the community by organizing all kinds of activities. Just two weeks ago, I announced federal funding through the program I just mentioned for the Campbellton Sno-Fest. I know that a number of similar announcements will be made in the coming year for various festivals in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and across the country.

We have also earmarked $46.5 million for the Canada arts presentation fund to support professional arts festivals and performance series. Once again, I know that several cultural societies in my riding benefit from this fund, which gives people in my riding opportunities to experience high-quality performances and make arts and culture part of their lives.

I am also thinking of the many investments that we are making in the Canada Music Fund, Telefilm Canada and the Canada Media Fund to support audiovisual content creators, and the list goes on.

I am very proud that our government is supporting the arts and culture sector because of its importance to Canada's economy. Artists not only make a significant contribution to our economy, they also help strengthen our Canadian identity. Their socio-economic contribution is vital.

I am proud that my government is supporting this sector. I still have a lot more to say about the budget, but I think my speaking time has come to an end, so I eagerly look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on September 17 in this very House, the Prime Minister stated, “We are going to have a declining level of debt”, yet the budget, Bill C-15, shows a growing level of debt.

Who misinformed the public? Was it the Prime Minister or the member's budget?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that Canada has one of the best net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. We have fiscal capacity, and we must use it to meet today's challenges. We are facing a tariff war that we did not ask for. We need to support the Canadian economy, and we must be there for Canadian businesses that are going through tough economic times.

Businesses need us to be there to support our economy. When people need help and various social measures, we are there, and we want to use our fiscal capacity to meet the needs not only of businesses, but also of Canadians.

In fact, for several years now, my colleague and all of his official opposition colleagues have been here in Ottawa opposing us every time that we put measures in place to help Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before continuing, I will just remind members that, even when heckling, we should try not to use unparliamentary language.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my optimistic colleague who told us that the government is there to help economic sectors that are struggling. He reminded me of the former prime minister, who often said that they would be there to be there. Now that is what I would call really being there.

I would simply like to point something out to my colleague. He mentioned Build Canada Homes in his speech. Well, in order to build houses or dwellings with lumber, we need a forestry industry. However, that industry is currently the most heavily taxed sector with all the tariffs and countervailing and anti-dumping duties. We are talking about tariffs of 45%. Federal government assistance is still pending. The government announced a liquidity program last summer, but there are still people who have not yet seen a penny from this program, and the government continues to refuse to respond to people in the forestry industry, who actually have solutions.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as recently as yesterday or this week, the minister announced another $500 million to help the softwood lumber industry. We understand that the industry is going through a tough time and we are there to support it. Last summer, we announced a relief plan that we are currently implementing. We announced additional measures and we will continue to be there as the situation evolves.

My colleague mentioned that I was not being specific enough. I will give him a specific, down-to-earth example. The Bloc campaigned for months to extend the runway in the Magdalen Islands, an initiative for which his colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj even formed a citizens' committee. Then, when we finally agreed, they turned around and voted against it in the House. I do not understand that.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that Bill C‑15 includes an investment to make National Acadian Day permanent. I know that is very important to him. It is also important for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the entire Atlantic region.

Can my colleague explain why this holiday is so important?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, National Acadian Day is a time when all Acadians come together to proudly celebrate our beautiful French language, our nation and our cultural commonalities.

For years now, the funding has not been permanent. It always had to be renegotiated when agreements expired. This is a long-standing Société nationale de l'Acadie ask, and they were heard. Several MPs who care about Acadia raised these issues during the budget consultations. We were heard.

On budget day, the Prime Minister himself came and told me that funding for National Acadian Day would not only be made permanent, but would also be doubled.

I see this as good news not only for New Brunswick's Acadian economy, but also for Acadians in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and everywhere people celebrate Acadia.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise on behalf of the great people of southwest and west-central Saskatchewan.

I will start my speech off today by acknowledging that the Saskatchewan Winter Games took place at the same time as the Olympics. I want to give a quick shout-out to all the kids who went up to Meadow Lake and to the Flying Dust First Nation to compete in those games. I say congratulations to those who won medals, but I also want to thank the kids who put in the hard work and tremendous effort to be able to compete in those games, and the parents who took time out of their busy schedules and lives to take their kids up there and spend some time up in the northern part of our province, which is a beautiful part of Saskatchewan. I congratulate all the athletes who competed.

I would also like to mention that I had the opportunity this week to meet with members of Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan, or APAS. Its young leaders were out in Ottawa this week. I had the distinct privilege of meeting with them, and I really appreciated the opportunity to hear what they had to say. I can say that the future of agriculture in Saskatchewan and across Canada is in very good hands. They have brilliant minds and are putting in tremendous work. They have a skill set and a talent level that is befitting of what the next generation of agriculture is truly all about, which kind of gets at the basis of the speech I want to give today in regard to the direction the government is going and the way it is treating agriculture.

Over this last break week, I had a couple of meetings in regard to the government's plan to slash funding and lay off workers at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research stations all across Canada. Some of that is affecting locations in my riding, as well as other locations in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and other places across Canada. It is really tragic that this is where the Liberals are choosing to make cuts.

The return on investment in agriculture is massive. Agriculture is the largest exporting element of the Canadian economy, particularly the Saskatchewan economy, and it plays such a key role in supporting our small towns, cities, communities and various organizations because of the strength of that industry.

When we look at the tone the government is choosing to set by cutting funding in agriculture, it is really backwards to the direction this country should be going. To take that at another level, we are going through the comprehensive expenditure reviews, and we are seeing department after department come back to the federal government saying that they will be able to lay off and make cuts with no impact to service delivery. However, I would say that the Department of Agriculture is the one department that is going to notice a substantial impact to the services that are being delivered to Canadians and Canadian farmers, but also to producers around the world.

We know that the research that happens in Saskatchewan and across the country not only benefits farmers here. It benefits farmers here first, but we are then able to export what we learn to the rest of the world. One such practice would be zero-till or low-till farming practices, which is something we changed on our farm when I was growing up. I jokingly say that it was something that put me out of a job on my parents' farm, because I used to do a lot of the cultivating and disking that we needed to do at that time. However, what we learned, which was aided by the research stations, was the value of doing continuous cropping to restore nutrients to the soil. It also helped build and maintain topsoil quality and moisture retention. It showed that we did not need to be plowing up our fields nearly as much as we used to. There are jurisdictions around the world that are still using that practice, and they could learn a lot from Canadian agriculture.

A lot of the research in that farming technique happened at the research stations across Canada. It was in partnership with some other regions in North America, but a lot of it was done at the research stations. However, that is just one firm example of some of the benefits we have seen from the research stations. Also, various crop varieties have been developed there, which have been cutting edge for being able to continue to grow crops in one of the most difficult places to grow crops in the world.

The area I represent is smack dab in the middle of what is called the Palliser triangle, which was designated by the explorer as an area unfit for humankind to live in, yet we are able to be the largest exporting area in the world of pulses. We grow a lot of grain, canola, other oilseeds and lots of cereal crops. We basically feed the world from an area that was deemed to be unfit for humans, so it is pretty remarkable what has happened.

However, it is because of the things that have happened at the research stations. They are strategically placed because of the various different soil types that exist in Canada, particularly Saskatchewan. My area is very sandy, very hilly and very rocky. A lot of it probably should have been left as native prairie grass, but it has now been turned into agriculture-producing land for crops. The research stations have been very key to making sure we have the crop varieties and also the right timing as to when we want to grow our crops in order to make sure we can maximize their output value. Things like research into fertilizer usage, pesticide applications and weed control are all done at these research stations, and they are put into the various different soil zones that exist in Saskatchewan and across the country. That is some of the most valuable research that has happened at these research stations.

To be fair, I know the government is trying to save money because it has been blowing the doors off the vault with the amount of money it is spending out there, so I want to show a few areas where the government would be able to save money.

The government was looking, over the next three years, to cut 665 staff and find about 15% in budgetary savings through Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Over the next 10 years, it will total roughly $150 million in cuts. We are currently also going through the supplementary phase of the budget, and in the supps we see one line item, alone, that would actually pay to keep the research stations open and staffed. There is $150 million for the modernization of the CBC. That is on top of their almost $2-billion budget, and they now need another $150 million for modernization. It is quite ridiculous how much money the government continues to pump needlessly into the CBC, but it also shows where the government's priorities are and how it has no clue what actually runs the largest exporting portion of the Canadian economy.

On top of that, there is the Liberals' boondoggle of the tree planting plan they had. They were going to plant two billion trees. They spent about $267 million to barely put a dent in that number. Now they have abandoned the plan, and they spent $200 million just to end the two-billion tree program. It was going to be one of the cornerstone environmental commitments of the government, and it basically wasted close to half a billion dollars on that entire program. Back in the eighties, Saskatchewan farmers had a tree planting program. They would have planted as many or more trees than that program did, and they would have done it for a fraction of the cost.

When we look at the debt charges, for example, just the debt charges alone are over $1,300 per Canadian per year as of last year, and that is in total $53.7 billion more than all revenue collected through GST. We know there are other areas where the government can find savings. It spent between $17 billion and $19 billion on external consultants, because it basically admitted that even though it has massively bloated the public service, its employees are not even able to do the work that they were supposedly hired to do in the first place.

There are many places that the government would have been able to find savings. We know through the comprehensive expenditure reviews that there are many departments that can find savings without impacting service delivery, but we know that the research that is happening at these research stations is invaluable. It cannot be replaced, and the fact that the government wants to do away with that is absolutely shameful.

I have met with a lot of the producer groups over the last week. They have two very simple requests right now. If the government is not going to back away from these cuts, at the very least they are asking if the government can at least let the 2026 crop year and research year be completed before any of these cuts are rolled out and also if it could slow down the pace at which it is looking to sell off the equipment that the research stations have. There are very specific and very specialized pieces of machinery at those research stations. If there is any chance we could save the research stations, that equipment needs to be there. The producers' request would be that the government would back off on selling that equipment at this point in time.

I look forward to questions from the government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague points out a lot of valid ideas. We have been looking at the expenditure review plan at the operations committee. Unfortunately, it actually requires orders of the committee to the government to release some of the details to the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

The member talks about agricultural research. In the past, we have seen the government spend $7.4 billion on its green energy accelerator. Billions of dollars went to multinational U.S. companies that had not even applied for the money. It actually went to one company that has been convicted of subsidizing ISIS abroad.

What does the member think about the fact that the government is cutting vital agricultural research while at the same time funding foreign multinational companies that are violating international law?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague makes a terrific point about how the government is making it harder for parliamentarians to get access to the information we need to be able to do our jobs. He is right. We did have to compel departments to release information on the CER, not only so we could do our jobs, but also so the independent Parliamentary Budget Officer could properly do his job.

It is disgraceful, the way the Liberals are treating Canadians. We then see, on the other side of it, that they are funding, in some cases, illegal and criminal activity abroad. It is absolutely appalling. If they were truly focused on building Canada strong, they would focus on projects and initiatives that are happening in Canada, they would listen to what is happening in Canada, and they would prioritize those kinds of initiatives instead of groups that are funding ISIS.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not address the silliness of making accusations about funding criminal activity internationally.

It is interesting, given the member is from the prairie region, that he does not recognize that when we go into an election, a major document we provide Canadians is our election platform. The Conservative Party had nothing in regard to agriculture in its own platform. That is an interesting point.

Does the member support the Minister of Agriculture's aggressive and very proactive approach to finding additional export markets that go beyond the Canada-U.S. borders? Does he support the travel that is necessary for the minister, the Prime Minister and others to secure future markets for our commodities?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers know that the government has been in place for 10, going on 11 years now. They know it is not a new government. They know that when they look at the benches, they see many of the same faces that have been there for the last 10 years.

It was Stephen Harper and the hon. Ed Fast who did a tremendous amount of work on securing trade deals around the world. In fact, we are going to be working, during the next sitting week, on the CPTPP, which was negotiated and signed by Ed Fast. It took the government a long time to actually ratify it. There is an amendment coming forward to that deal.

Conservatives have long been the ones who have championed this, because of the legacy of great Conservative prime ministers like Stephen Harper and members like Ed Fast, who have done a tremendous job on trade. That is a legacy I am proud of.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Mr. Speaker, also offensive are some of the initiatives the Liberals have funded abroad. I think about the issue with the rice. I am not going to get into it on the rice, but can the member talk about some of the dollars that have been wasted in some crazy investments or expenditures overseas that would have been way better invested in increasing the stability of research stations in rural Canada?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the general strategy of the government has been to pick all kinds of radical DEI projects around the world to fund, but it has also had those same policies in place here domestically.

The Liberals left a $500-million maintenance backlog at the research stations, which has made those research stations vulnerable. The infrastructure is kind of crumbling around people while they are trying to do their work. In the meantime, to fill rabid DEI requirements, the Liberals went about a hiring spree.

If we look at what the Liberals are funding internationally, it just further cements where their priorities are. Rather than actually working for producers here in Canada, they are focused more on these international pet projects that have no benefit to Canadians.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C‑15, and therefore to the budget. I am sure that many of my colleagues reread it every night. Before beginning, I would like to sincerely thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Finance. After some challenging discussions and debates, we managed to finish our work earlier this week and send the bill back to the House. I really want to thank our colleagues from all the parties. I think that we fulfilled our duty as parliamentarians, and that is something that benefits all of us, the nation and the prestige of this institution.

Let us return to Bill C‑15. As we know, the global context is rapidly changing, leaving economies, businesses and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. Quite frankly, a lot of people no longer know what to make of it. There is a great deal of uncertainty, volatility and ambiguity. That is why the Government of Canada is focusing on what it can control, which is building a stronger economy to make life more affordable for Canadians. We are doing this by forging new trade and investment partnerships abroad and strengthening our capacity at home. This allows us to provide Canadians with good job opportunities and better wages from coast to coast to coast. Our government has a plan to ensure that Canadians have the support they need, and now is the time to implement that plan.

We heard many comments from various groups and analysts. We heard a number of opinions on the Government of Canada's fiscal framework. People ask us why we are doing this, why we are doing it at this scale and whether we really have the means to do so. We are taking action now because the time to act is now. It is not three years or five years from now. We must take action now to help us get through what our Prime Minister recently said in Davos is a rupture in the world order. This world order served us well in Canada for about 30 years. However, the world has changed and the time to act is now.

Obviously, there are no secrets in the budget: There is a deficit. This deficit is clearly indicated in the budget. The deficit for the 2025-26 fiscal year is $78 billion, or 2.5% of GDP. We are not hiding it. We are not playing any tricks. It is clearly stated in the budget documents. Our friends across the way keep saying that we should have limited the deficit to perhaps $40 billion or even less than that. However, they have never told us where they would have found $30 billion or $40 billion in savings. They have not told us what they would have cut in the budget to achieve that.

This also means that, with this deficit, Canada's public debt stands at 42% of GDP. Of course, 42% of GDP is no small amount. We all agree that it is a significant debt. We are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars, but it is 42% of Canada's GDP. We always need to keep in mind the order of magnitude. We are often presented with financial indicators of debt and deficit in absolute terms. A trillion dollars in debt, or $1,000 billion, or nearly $80 billion in deficit are really shocking numbers, but we must put them into perspective in relation to the size of the economy and the capacity of that economy to absorb such levels of debt.

What we have noticed and observed since the budget was tabled in early November is that the financial markets are not in distress at all. They are absorbing this deficit very well. Canada still has a AAA credit rating, one of the best credit ratings in the world, giving us privileged access to capital markets to enable us to implement our plan. I agree that our plan is ambitious, but we absolutely have the ability to implement it. I will say it again: The time to do it is now, and now is when we are doing it.

At the end of the budget period, in fiscal year 2029-2030, we will still have a deficit of 1.5% of GDP. We are going from 2.5% to 1.5% of GDP. Once again, this is entirely manageable, and Canada's public debt will represent 43% of GDP. We are going from 42% to 43% of GDP. With numbers like these, I can assure the House that financial markets will continue to welcome Canada's debt. We will therefore be able to continue financing our activities without any issues, still with a AAA credit rating, one of the best in the world, which will allow us to achieve our objectives.

I want to come back to the budget. The government quickly introduced several new measures to lower costs, which included cutting taxes for 22 million Canadians, boosting residential construction and protecting and expanding crucial social programs. We believe that we must be able to foster and support economic development, while always taking care of our people.

We must always be able to provide the social programs that we truly value and that set Canada apart. What makes Canada what it is, in large part, is the range of social programs that we have had in place for a long time—these are not recent developments—and the fact that we continue to support these programs and make them more accessible. This continues to make life affordable for many Canadians.

That is another point of contention, so to speak, between our opinion and that of our friends across the floor, who believe that social programs are expensive. Of course, these programs are not free, but they help keep life affordable for millions of Canadians, whether through the Canada child benefit or affordable day care. Both of these programs help many families and enable many women to join the labour market. These programs cost money, but at the same time, they make life affordable for many Canadians. If we decided to make changes now and eliminate these social programs, it would be completely counterproductive, because it would make life much less affordable for millions of Canadians.

Members on the other side tell us that when we do these things, it creates inflationary deficits: Liberal inflation. I would need far more time than I have to explain why that is not the case.

First, inflation in Canada is currently well under control. I understand that many of my friends on the other side are not very fond of the Bank of Canada. In fact, their leader said in a somewhat reckless statement that he would have fired the Governor of the Bank of Canada.

It turns out that the Bank of Canada was one of the first major G7 central banks to successfully bring inflation back within the target range of 1% to 3%. The Bank of Canada's goal of controlling inflation without creating a recession was successful, even though many said that it was inevitable. That inflation was not the result of budget deficits; it was an international phenomenon. There was COVID‑19, then the resurgence of COVID‑19. There were a lot of factors, and it affected everyone, in Canada, the United States, Europe, Japan and Korea. All developed countries experienced a sharp rise in inflation, and we were the first to manage to bring it under control.

It is important to not confuse “inflation”, which is the rate of price increases, with “price levels”. The cost of living involves price levels. After a few years of high inflation, prices are very high, and there are indeed affordability challenges. There are cost-of-living issues, particularly with respect to food. However, as I said earlier, if we were to start cutting social programs now, we would be making life much less affordable for millions of Canadians.

The budget also includes measures to support consumers. Specifically, Bill C‑15 includes a few measures to make life more affordable. For example, it includes measures to promote competition in order to support businesses and consumers. More competition is good for the economy. Healthy competition pushes businesses to operate more efficiently, to innovate so they can stand out and to reduce operating costs.

In budget 2025, we are also addressing structural issues that have held the Canadian economy back for far too long. We will increase competition in areas where it is weak. We will simplify regulations in areas where they are too restrictive. I want to say just one word on this matter. Yes, regulations can become burdensome. Regulations can become an obstacle, but often there are good reasons to have regulations. We must always find a balance.

I see that my time is up. I have a lot more to say, but I will close by saying that we tabled a very good budget.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the third time and passed.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again on Bill C-15.

Before I start, I will mention that I am sharing my time with my Edmonton neighbour, the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River.

There is a lot to cover in Bill C-15. It is another omnibus budget bill from the government, covering about 75 different pieces of legislation. Obviously, in just 10 minutes, I cannot get into everything. I would love to talk more about the massive debt it would be adding. I would love to talk about the added deficit and the current finance minister. We like to tease him because he stands in the House all the time, yelling at the top of his lungs that he will “take no lessons from the Conservatives.” I just wish he would take lessons from the previous finance minister, who delivered a deficit that was $40 billion lower than the current finance minister and actually resigned over it. Perhaps he could take some lessons from her on how to deliver a proper budget.

I am going to cover a few themes today, mostly around openness, following the rules and just being honest with Canadians about the budget. The first issue is openness.

King Edward I, when calling the model Parliament, and I call him the godfather of the estimates process, stated, “What touches all should be approved by all, and it is also clear that common dangers should be met with measures agreed upon in common.” This is basically the whole purpose behind Parliament in general and, also, the estimates process.

In the most recent estimates, the supplementary estimates (C) just came out. For those at home wondering what the estimates are, estimates are, basically, like writing the cheque for something. We can compare it to someone's rent at home; they know that at the end of the month, they will have to budget for $2,000, or perhaps $3,000 under the Liberal government. They have to budget for $3,000 at the end of the month to pay the rent. That is the budget. Cutting the actual cheque is the estimates process, the actual paying for that.

In the supplementary estimates (C), which is the government coming to Parliament looking for approval of spending, the government has in the Treasury Board $1 billion under what is called the vote 50 for, ostensibly, defence spending. There is no explanation of what this $1 billion is for. The Liberals are basically coming to Parliament and saying, “Give us $1 billion, and we'll tell you about it later.”

We just heard in the operations committee earlier today that we will not know what the government spent the $1 billion on until the public accounts come out over a year from now. We will not get the details of what the $1 billion is for for about 18 months.

This came up years ago, in 2018, when the Liberal government brought forward the vote 40 slush fund scandal. The Liberals came to Parliament saying, “We need $15 billion. Approve it in advance, but we are not going to tell you what it's for. We'll tell you after the fact.”

When we pressed it on this, we were told by the government that it was presumptuous of parliamentarians to ask what the money is for before approving it. Here we have it again. The government can say it is for defence spending, but the Liberals are so sclerotic in their defence procurement, it boggles the mind that they would put out the supplementary estimates saying, “Give us a billion now. It's desperately needed now. We don't know what it's for right now, but give it to us so we can spend it immediately.”

It takes 10 years for these guys to procure a simple pistol for the army and seven years to procure knapsacks. We were able to prosecute the Second World War in a shorter period than it took the Liberal government to procure knapsacks, and yet somehow it needs the $1 billion approved now without telling us what it is for.

It does not stop there. The main estimates that came out, which was the approval for the coming year, had another $1 billion. The Liberals want $2 billion of taxpayers' money approved by Parliament, and they will not tell us what it is for. We reached out to the Department of Defence, asking what this money is for, and it said it does not know either. It did not have the details of what the $2 billion would be for, but the government says, “Give it to us now.”

It is the same issue with Canada Post. The government lent it $1 billion, and in the most recent estimates, it has asked for $1 billion more, so $2 billion.

We know that Canada Post is in trouble. For five years running, the government has refused Canada Post's annual submission for its strategic plan to address the structural problems going on with Canada Post. The government ignored it for political reasons, and now it is saying it has to spend taxpayers' money to bail Canada Post out with a loan.

The Kaplan report on Canada Post states that one would need a “complete suspension of disbelief” to believe that Canada Post will ever return this money. The Canada Post Corporation Act, 32(2) says that writeoffs for such a loan must show in the very next set of estimates. Those are the estimates that came out today, and there is nothing. The government is now coming back to us and saying that it will not show the writeoffs until supplementary estimates (C), which will come out a year from now.

Even though Canada Post has burned through the first $1 billion and will not return it, it has asked for a second billion. We know from the Kaplan report that it will not be repaid, but the government is not being honest with Canadians about this loan and the fact that it will be a writeoff.

That is all I am asking: Make it a policy. That would be fine. We could debate the policy, but be honest with parliamentarians and Canadians about where the money is going.

I have asked repeatedly that the government follow the rules. We actually have rules around government spending on advertising, as well as internal Treasury Board rules about how the government writes up its communication. We are right now debating Bill C-15 for a budget called “Canada Strong”. It is right on the budget itself. This is the exact wording of the Liberals' campaign slogan. This is right from the Treasury Board guidelines. These are not my guidelines:

In the context of all Government of Canada communications products and activities, non-partisan means:

objective, factual and explanatory;

Good luck getting objective from the Liberals, and I would say the same thing about “factual”. It continues:

free from political party slogans

The Liberals actually wrote their party slogan as the budget. Again, I just ask the government to follow the rules.

The public accounts is the accounting of last fiscal year's spending. Last fiscal year is before the current Prime Minister became Prime Minister. The Liberal government wrote in the public accounts, on page 8, for those following at home, “The government is moving toward a new capital budgeting approach that distinguishes its day-to-day operational spending.... [This] budgeting framework will improve transparency”.

The government wrote, in last year's accounts, propaganda for the current policy. Public accounts end on March 31 of the previous year, but the Liberals are talking about future government policy. They wrote, “the elimination of the...carbon tax on fuel products further contributed to lower inflation in early 2025.” The carbon tax was cancelled April 1, but the public accounts ran up to March 31. Again, the government is violating Treasury Board rules.

We confronted the deputy minister about this. He said he would not have anything else to say on it. We further pressed the assistant deputy minister, Evelyn Dancey, and she spent time trying to explain that the low growth shown in the budget does not reflect all the great work being done by the current government, even though, of course, the Bank of Canada also shows the same lack of growth. Here we have assistant department heads shilling for the government and violating Treasury Board rules.

We just ask for transparency, for parliamentarians to be given the information so we can vote properly, and for the Liberals to follow the rules the government itself sets out to protect democracy and the rights of parliamentarians.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the member says, “Follow the rules.” He might want to reflect on his own leader and the advertising he did. In fact, one incident was brought to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The minister at the time, the leader of the Conservative Party, was found guilty, that is with respect to following the rules.

Yes, there has been a great deal ambition and progress on many different fronts. The member cited, for example, the investment in the Canadian military. I could go from the major projects to major pieces of legislation, all forms of activities, and I would suggest that we have probably done more in less than a year than Harper did in 10 years.

Does the member opposite believe that the government is going too fast for him to keep up?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, whenever I need a moment of comedy or mirth in the House, I can always count on the member for Winnipeg North to deliver it.

It is ridiculous. Only the Liberal government would say, “Give us $2 billion so we can hurry up spending for military. Oh, by the way, don't look at our record of taking seven years to buy knapsacks. Don't look at our record of taking over 10 years to buy handguns. Don't look at our record of delays around the shipbuilding project, and don't look at our record of incompetence and interference with Irving Shipbuilding and the supply ship debacle, but give us the money, and you can worry about it later.”

The member should get on board and understand what Parliament is about. It is about approving expenditure, not writing corrupt Liberals a blank cheque.

[William Stevenson, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding whether my colleague thinks it is incompetence or actually skullduggery in the Liberals' trying to get the money without actually coming up with the ideas and the transparency of where the numbers are.

The Liberals want to keep producing the GST break for first-time homebuyers, but there are no statistics out there. It looks like they are coming up with a program that exists for nobody, so maybe sometimes they are just guessing at what they want for money because they do not really know what they actually have, as opposed to something that might be a plan that we do not understand.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Hanlon's razor says to never attribute to malice that which is more appropriately attributed to incompetence. I think both apply to the Liberal government in this case.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I go back to the end of last year, when the Conservative Party was doing a considerable amount of filibustering and did not even want the current bill to go to the committee stage, where maybe we would have had more discussion and more accountability with respect to asking and answering questions.

I wonder if the member has any regret or remorse that there was so much filibustering being conducted by the Conservative Party, which prevented the legislation from going to committee earlier, late last year.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is so much fiction in the member's comment that it should be a Netflix special.

The reality is that we had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to deliver a budget. Does the member not remember when the government actually said it would not be tabling a budget until around this time of the year? The media, for once doing its job, and the opposition had to drag the government, kicking and screaming, to deliver the very documents we have now. If it were up to the Liberals, we would just be starting debate on the budget.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's comments on scrapping the Digital Services Tax Act, which made it possible to tax large digital companies with sales figures greater than $750 million. That was supposed to bring in about $1.5 billion a year for culture and regional media.

Does my colleague agree that this much-discussed digital services tax should be reinstated?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the issue is not whether we should bring back the digital sales tax but whether the government should, as the Prime Minister has promised twice, strike a deal with the United States. Twice he stood publicly and said he would have a deal, the best trade deal, struck with the United States. He has not delivered that for Canadians. That is what the issue at hand is.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, at third reading.

The Prime Minister often bills his government as Canada's new government. It is a clear public relations effort to distance himself from 10 years of failure under Justin Trudeau. Consistent with that, the Prime Minister promised that he would take, in his words, a “very different approach” than Justin Trudeau when it comes to Canada's finances.

It is true that the Prime Minister has a very different style from Justin Trudeau, but, putting aside the facade that the Prime Minister puts on, the more that things change with the Liberals, the more they stay the same. When it comes to the policies and priorities of the Prime Minister, he is nothing more than Justin Trudeau 2.0. In some respects, he is performing worse than Justin Trudeau, as tough as that is to believe.

One area, amazingly, in which the Prime Minister is performing worse than Justin Trudeau is Canada's finances. He is a Prime Minister who promised to spend less. It turns out he is spending more, an eye-watering $90 billion more. He is a Prime Minister who has managed to double the deficit. He is presiding over a $78.3-billion deficit, up from a massive $36.3-billion deficit, which was Justin Trudeau's last massive deficit. In fact, the Prime Minister now has the record of presiding over the largest deficit in Canadian history outside COVID.

It is not as though the Prime Minister can say that this is a one-off or a one-time deal, because when one looks at the government's fiscal outlook, what we see over the next three years are deficits that are projected to average $62.3 billion, double what Justin Trudeau's government forecast.

What about fiscal anchors? Justin Trudeau's government touted its fiscal anchor, and it was quite an unambitious one, as being to keep the deficit below 1% of GDP. What has the Prime Minister done with respect to that fiscal anchor? He has blown completely past it, because the deficit-to-GDP ratio has doubled to more than 2%. The government is on course to have a deficit-to-GDP ratio double that of Justin Trudeau's fiscal anchor in the coming fiscal years.

Speaking of fiscal anchors, what is the Prime Minister's fiscal anchor? He claims he has one, which I will get into momentarily, but in substance, I would say, the Prime Minister's fiscal anchor is nothing more than smoke and mirrors in an effort to create the mirage of balancing the budget, all the while hiding massive deficits and massive debt.

The Prime Minister has created a fiscal shell game by creating two budgets: an operating budget and a capital budget. The operating budget ostensibly deals with day-to-day government spending, whereas the capital budget deals with so-called investments. One of the problems is that the government's definition of an investment is quite elastic. That is not by accident. It is quite deliberate, to give the Prime Minister and the government the flexibility to move spending from the operating budget to the capital budget and say that actually it is not spending but is investing. Again, it is smoke and mirrors.

After creating this fiscal shell game, the Prime Minister has come out and announced his big fiscal anchor, which is to balance the budget by 2028-29, but not the federal budget, the operating budget.

Here is the bottom line. Whether we look at the operating budget or the capital budget, if we call it spending or we call it investment, it all relates to the fiscal finances of Ottawa and Ottawa's bottom line. As such, when we look at the fiscal projection for fiscal year 2028-29, the year the Prime Minister is going to meet his fiscal anchor of balancing the operating budget, and we look at total revenues projected versus total spending projected, the overall deficit is projected to be a staggering $57.9 billion, which would be one of the largest deficits in Canadian history.

In short, the Prime Minister is not balancing anything. All that he is doing is making the budgeting process more complex and less transparent, all to make it more difficult to see the state of federal finances. What is the Prime Minister's spending plan between now and when he balances the operating budget? The Prime Minister is planning to rack up a quarter-trillion dollars in new debt, double the amount of debt that Justin Trudeau's government was planning to rack up during the same period of time.

The bottom line is that the Prime Minister has separated operating and capital budgets to hide from Canadians the fact that he is presiding over more spending than Justin Trudeau, and with bigger deficits, and accumulating significantly more debt. It is straight-up budget trickery by the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister promised that he would take a very different approach to Canada's finances than Justin Trudeau, most Canadians expected that the Prime Minister meant he would be more fiscally responsible. That is certainly what he was hoping Canadians would think. By the way, this would not be that difficult to achieve, given 10 years of fiscal vandalism under Justin Trudeau. However, the Prime Minister has not taken a very different approach. He has taken the same approach as Justin Trudeau. Just like Justin Trudeau, the Prime Minister is presiding over out-of-control spending, massive deficits and massive debt.

Here is the deal: He is a Prime Minister who is not as advertised. He calls it Canada's new government, but it is not a new government. It is the same old Liberals with the same failed and reckless fiscal policies. It is Justin Trudeau 2.0, except worse.

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

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, the member opposite has to take in the reality that there was an election and Canada does have a new Prime Minister. As much as they might want to go back, that is not the case.

Let me give a quote. This comes from the IMF's managing director. The IMF represents 190 different countries, and this is what the managing director has to say:

Both Germany and Canada recognize that in this very testing time, they need to use their fiscal space....

In the case of Canada, the Canadian authorities have been very decisive to take action in the context of changing relations with their main trading partner. And one of these actions is indeed to reform—modernize the budget framework [separating] operating expenses in the budget from investment—that ability to then focus strategically on investment that are progrowth, that can lift up productivity.

This is what the IMF is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give the member for St. Albert—Sturgeon River a chance to respond.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the definition of what constitutes an investment. It includes so-called incentives. It includes things that support the formation of capital or which meaningfully raise private sector productivity. In other words, the government's definition of investment includes handouts and corporate welfare. It is all part of a scheme by the Prime Minister to blur, to hide and to make it more difficult to understand the massive deficits and massive debt he is presiding over, which, as I noted, is double the deficits and double the debt of Justin Trudeau, one of the most—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering about something. I have a hard time understanding the Conservatives' position on Bill C‑15. They were enthused about Bill C‑5 last June; they supported not only Bill C‑5, but the different closure motions as well, including the super closure motion imposed that week. Furthermore, what kind of official opposition would support the closure motion of a government that wants to give itself free rein, proceed without consultations and circumvent existing laws? What kind of opposition is going to give a blank cheque to a government it spends all its time criticizing?

I want to understand why Bill C‑5 was acceptable when today, in their estimation, Bill C‑15 is not. Both are similar in almost every respect.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are standing in opposition to a budget implementation bill that is reckless, that doubles the debt of Justin Trudeau. We are not the only party that is opposing this budget implementation bill. I believe all opposition parties oppose this budget implementation bill. We are not going to support this bad legislation coming from the government.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny to hear the member for Winnipeg North quote—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

There is so much noise in the courtyard. It is really distracting. I am going to invite those people in the courtyard to leave the area. It is part of the downside of the courtyard. There is a lot of noise when people circulate there.

I will let the member for Edmonton West resume and complete his question or his comment.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North was quoting the IMF, which was funny because the deputy minister of finance just two weeks ago stated in the public accounts committee that anything the IMF says should be taken “with a grain of salt.” This is from his own government, but I will quote from the exact same report that states, “Directors encouraged steps to improve the transparency and accountability of public investment”. This is regarding the capital versus operating. The IMF wants transparency and accountability. It continues, “and to clarify the debt-to-GDP ratio as a formal fiscal anchor”.

I am wondering if the member can comment on the Liberals' choosing only to hand-pick and cherry-pick a few items from the IMF report and not some of the more important items.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is politics as usual from the Liberals. That would be the explanation. I spoke about the fiscal anchor. The Liberal government had, previously, a pretty weak fiscal anchor, but it was at least a clear fiscal anchor. The Prime Minister has a convoluted, complicated fiscal anchor that is nothing more than a shell game, as I noted, to hide massive deficits and massive debt.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Lanark—Frontenac, who is diligently working on his speech right now.

The government will say it has a revenue problem, and it does. It will say it has a spending problem, and it does. What it will not say is that it has a priority problem. I served. I know what it means to trust that one's country has one's back. Bill C-15 is where we find out what that trust is actually worth. It is 600 pages that inflate savings that do not exist, that retroactively change the law to avoid compensating veterans who were quietly overcharged for decades, and that demand repayment from disabled veterans who can least afford it. Serving this country is not a liability to be managed, but this bill treats it like one.

I want to mention that the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is currently studying barriers to entrepreneurship among veterans. That study will likely conclude with a recommendation for a new grant program. That is the predictable result. However, while ACVA studies barriers, the $6.6-billion defence industrial strategy, the largest defence investment in a generation, contains zero veteran business set-asides. There is not a single line.

In the United States, veteran status opens economic doors. The GI bill's boots to business program, a 3% federal contracting carve-out for veteran-owned businesses, is a deliberate policy choice. Deliberate policy choices are important. Canada is studying barriers while actively building new ones. We do not need a new grant program. We need to treat the veterans who built this sector as qualified and important partners in its future.

The government is now claiming that Bill C-15 will generate $4.23 billion in savings by reducing cannabis reimbursement rates for veterans. Let us look at the actual numbers. VAC spends roughly $200 million a year on medical cannabis. The government is cutting the reimbursement rate by about a quarter. That is roughly $50 million in annual savings. Even over many years, the math does not come close to $4.23 billion. It would take over 30 years. The government has not explained the gap. We have asked and veterans organizations have asked repeatedly. The $4.23-billion figure relies on public sector accounting that recognizes estimated life savings all at once today. Many veterans will face higher out-of-pocket costs for products currently covered under their plan. If the government is willing to present inflated numbers when it benefits it so that it looks like it is doing what it says it is going to do, veterans and Canadians should ask what else in the bill is being measured the same way.

While this bill was being drafted, thousands of veterans were receiving letters from the government telling them to repay immediately. We are not talking about small amounts. My colleagues have documented cases exceeding $100,000 being demanded from disabled veterans. The government is clawing this money back directly from disability pensions and other payments. These are not veterans who cheated the system. My office heard from one veteran directly who has 21 years of service, a 100% disability designation and a spotless record with VAC going back a decade. When he applied for the income replacement benefit in 2015, he declared every source of income on his application, including his military pension. VAC reviewed it, accepted him into the program and sent him a letter confirming it had accounted for that pension. He kept every document.

In January of this year, the veteran received a letter from VAC telling him that he had failed to report that same pension and that he now owes over $42,000. He and his wife live on that pension income. His words to my office were that he is afraid they are going to lose their house.

He is not alone. Veterans across this country have contacted MPs to report the same pattern of repayment demands for income they had properly disclosed, with VAC's own acceptance letters sitting in their files as proof. This is not an overpayment recovery program, but an administrative failure being downloaded onto the most vulnerable people in the system. The government is demanding repayment from disabled veterans who received benefits in good faith while at the same time refusing to pay veterans who have been overcharged for 28 years. This is not fiscal policy. It is a double standard.

It never ends with the Liberal government. For nearly 30 years, Veterans Affairs Canada overcharged veterans in long-term care across the country. What was the error? When calculating care rates, VAC excluded the territories from the formula. The Interpretation Act is explicit: The definistion of province “includes Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut”. VAC ignored this, which affected the formula applied to veterans, wherever they live, by roughly $260 per month, or $3,130 per year, for nearly three decades.

A class action lawsuit was launched in October 2024 on behalf of veterans and their survivors. Bill C-15 would make that lawsuit go away.

I want to highlight that, on December 8, 2025, the Senate Standing Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs heard testimony from VAC officials on exactly that issue. Senator Patterson asked a simple question, knowing that costs increase significantly the further north one goes, she said, “So can we not include ‘and territories’?” The VAC official answered plainly, “That would change the intent of the program.” Senator Patterson's response was, “Wow. Thank you.”

In my experience working with Senator Patterson, I have learned that she is a strong advocate for veterans and serving members. Her response says it all. She cannot believe it.

Bill C-15 makes this dire situation even worse. Sections 373 to 375 of the bill do not fix the problem, but erase it. The government is using budget implementation legislation to retroactively rewrite the law back to July 15, 1998, making that VAC deal legal in hindsight. This is not an administrative correction. Parliament is being asked to authorize the government to keep money it should never have collected from veterans in long-term care, some of whom are no longer alive to see it returned.

The Veterans ombud, retired Colonel Jardine, testified at the Standing Committee on Finance that she wrote directly to the minister on this issue calling for her to admit the mistake. She correctly points out that the bill is unprecedented, patently unfair and is calling for amendments to Bill C-15. The minister could not find the courtesy to reply to the ombud, but her department found time to write collection letters to thousands of disabled veterans.

The real issue here is that these veterans are not in their prime. They are often in long-term care. They are elderly, disabled and at their most vulnerable. They were overcharged because their government misread its own law. They had no way of knowing it. They had no way of fighting it. A class action lawsuit was their only recourse. The bill closes that door.

The question is not whether the government can find the money, but whether the people who wore the uniform deserve to be treated fairly for the country they served. This bill answers that question, and the answer is no. This is a shameful use of Parliament's powers.

When one serves, they learn that the person beside them will not leave them behind. That is not a policy, but a promise. Veterans deserve better. I will not be supporting this.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to thank my colleague for his service to our country. I would also to thank his family, because when a member serves, their family serves with them.

My colleague talked a bit during his speech about deliberate policy choices. I am wondering if he could elaborate on why the Conservative government, in 2014, closed nine Veterans Affairs offices, slashed the jobs of Veterans Affairs staff who provided direct services to veterans and cut the benefits budget.

I am just wondering if the member could elaborate on the deliberate policy choice that was made at that time.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, and let us state the facts, that many of the offices were streamlined into Service Canada offices and were not closed, as my colleague has said. We are putting veterans here.

The questions I am getting from veterans are not from 2014; they are from now. The questions I am getting are from now, and the Liberal government is in power. It has had 10 years, almost 11 years, to fix the problem, and it has done nothing. It has ignored the problem, and now it is trying to hide it.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with the carbon capture and sequestration tax credit increase and extension for oil and gas companies. Our Conservative colleagues often object to spending public funds this way or handing out subsidies.

However, do they consider this direct subsidy to oil companies, owned in large part by Americans already making billions in profits, to be acceptable?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the carbon tax is a hot button for me because I have seen the carbon tax being downloaded to provinces in hospitals when we were having a health care crisis. I have seen it downloaded to provinces when we have had an education crisis, where school boards are struggling to make ends meet. I have also seen it downloaded to municipalities when kids are going to learn how to swim, where the recreation fees are going up and parents are drowning in taxes. This is what I have seen from the Liberal government. Money is not getting to the people it needs to get to, and that is just wrong.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his service. I would like to mention that, in my riding of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, Base Borden is very close to me, and I have been getting the same calls that he is getting.

Knowing that my colleague has served and been there, why does he feel that the Liberals have been so negligible in their attitude toward veterans, and what can we do as the opposition to try to help them out through this cause when they need it the most?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have visited the base in my colleague's riding, and I know there are a lot of veterans who are retiring in his area. I thank them for their service.

It is true that Conservatives are getting phone calls. Even the Liberals are getting phone calls about veterans and the way they have been treated. It is being ignored and can no longer be ignored. As the Conservative Party, we need to be raising the standard for veterans and letting them know that we are here to support them and that they deserve the basic rights they are entitled to.

They should be allowed to have that money. It should be flowing into their accounts. They should not be getting letters in their mailboxes telling them that they owe $42,000 and that their homes are on the line. That is not the way a country repays its veterans for the freedoms we have in this nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member was wrong when he made the assertion that veterans offices were not closed. There were nine veterans offices that were in fact closed.

The government has worked and will continue to work closely with veterans to ensure we are there for them, not only for the short term but also for the long term.

Can the member confirm and will he admit that there were nine offices that were actually closed?

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

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

In the four years that I have been here, we have had five ministers of this department, and there have been nine ministers over the last 10 years. The government clearly does not care about veterans.

It is time to stop. It is time to thank the veterans, repay them and let them know that we care.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I am going to be talking about two themes: the first is property rights and the second is the economics of the Alto project. My comments on both are in the context of the part of the budget implementation act that deals with the proposed high-speed rail network and the Alto train, which would run 1,000 kilometres from Quebec City to Toronto at a cost estimate of $60 billion to $90 billion.

I am going to start with property rights because the proposed corridor of 1,000 kilometres would run through my constituency. There are two proposed routes that would go through my constituency: a northern route and a southern route. Whichever one is chosen, people who live on that route would be negatively affected, and I thought I would talk a bit about how they would be affected.

Let me start by telling members my own position on property rights. This is an issue that is near and dear to me. It is an issue on which I proposed a constitutional amendment, an amendment to the Charter of Rights, to include property rights. The formula which I suggested, because one speaks in general language in bills of rights and charters of rights, is to say that, when property is taken or its use infringed upon for a government purpose, the owners ought to have a right to full, just and timely compensation. All three of those principles are violated by the expropriation and land use restriction regime proposed under the budget implementation act for Alto.

Alto has published a plan of rough estimates for where the corridors would be. These rough estimates show corridors roughly 10 kilometres wide. It varies along the route. I assume Alto is in the process of doing some geological work to determine where it wants to go. The process that has been outlined for us says that, at the end of this year either the northern or the southern route will be chosen, and additionally, the corridor for the potential rail line will be narrowed to about a kilometre wide. I am not sure if that is actually what will happen, but that is what it has planned to happen.

Within that one kilometre-wide corridor, a thousand kilometres long, and therefore a thousand square kilometres, Alto would have the power to expropriate. This expropriation would occur with a Crown corporation, which includes private investors, and it would do this using expropriation powers normally only exercised by government. That is an extraordinary shift. Additionally, a series of protections for property owners would be stripped away.

The first thing that would happen is that Alto would look and then say it might run along a certain part within that kilometre-wide corridor. It might not, but it is not sure, so it is going to put a property development freeze on all properties that it might go through. Will that be every property within the kilometre-wide corridor? We do not know yet, but a freeze on property, that is to say that someone cannot develop or improve their property, has a real financial impact.

Under the Expropriation Act, this kind of freeze is permitted, and it can be for up to 120 days. Under the new legislation, it would be for up to two years. During those two years, someone would not be able to do anything to their property. If they tried to, they could be fined through what are called administrative monetary penalties, and they can be ruinous penalties.

It is a bit difficult, from the legislation, to determine exactly what those penalties would be. It appears to me that they could be as high as $20,000 per offence, and individual offences that continue over a period of time could result in multiple fines. That, I think, is enough to ensure that anyone would, indeed, not develop their property.

After Alto has built its rail and decided which properties it actually wants, someone's property might be released, at which point they have the right to seek compensation for the loss in value. However, that is a long, slow process, and this would affect thousands of properties, maybe tens of thousands of properties. I actually do not know how many there will be in the as yet undefined corridor.

All these properties would be involved, with people trying to seek compensation, and each one would have to be a negotiated settlement. I think it is safe to say that, for many people, the payback would be less than it was worth or they would simply give up and never actually seek the money that was taken from them. That is for the people who would have a property freeze placed on them.

Will there be any compensation for people whose property value is diminished because the Alto line runs through, cutting the community in half? No, there will be no compensation for those folks. It will significantly affect property values, landlocked properties, properties that can no longer be accessed with ease, properties where formerly people could get to them by simply crossing and driving down the road, where now the road is bisected. Presumably hundreds of roads will be bisected.

Alto will have a strong incentive to try and make it as minimal as possible, the number of roads on which overpasses are built. There is a reason for that: Overpasses cost money. I have heard estimates that a single overpass is as high as $50 million, but I have found some evidence that it may be as low as $20 million. Whatever the case is, multiply that by a few hundred, and we can see that Alto, which is trying to be a profit-making company, is going to finance this money through floating a bond. It is going to have a very strong incentive to be as ruthless as possible and have as few overpasses as possible.

I was wondering: How many overpasses might there be? It is hard to estimate exactly, but I did take some highway construction for property near places where I live or have lived. I used to live on Phelan Road in what is now part of the extended city of Ottawa. Highway 416 was built south of the city. That road was cut off, and so where people could have crossed and talked to their neighbour within a five-minute walk, they now have to drive seven kilometres in one direction, cross over the highway and go seven kilometres back, 14 kilometres in total.

Similarly, east of Ottawa, there is a spot where I go camping. My mother-in-law owns a campground there. To get across Highway 417, people have to drive seven kilometres in one direction, cross over and drive six kilometres back. I have several other examples I could give, but I think the point is made. This is going to divide communities, slow down emergency response times and so on.

Now, in the three remaining minutes I have, I want to talk about the costs of Alto. I do not think we grasp just how badly costed-out this really is. A cost range was given. These were stabs in the dark, frankly. Let us say it is $90 billion. There are 40 million people in Canada, 10 million families of four, and $90 billion divided by 10 million is $9,000 for every single Canadian family of four across the country. It does not matter if they live in Nunavut and will never even see this rail, because every Canadian family is paying $9,000. Every Canadian family across the country is paying for something that is going to service people only in that narrow corridor. The people whose properties will be sliced up are paying $9,000 too. Is that number to be taken seriously? That, in itself, is mind-blowingly high. It is higher than our entire national deficit this year.

As it turns out, there is a fascinating paper written by Prof. Bent Flyvbjerg, who is the professor and founding chair of program management at the Saïd Business School at Oxford University. He writes this, in a recent paper about megaprojects in general:

Performance data for megaprojects speak their own language. Nine out of ten such projects have cost overruns; overruns of up to 50% in real terms are common, over 50% are not uncommon.

Then he provides a list. I will just read some of the rail projects:

The Shinkansen Joetsu high-speed rail line in Japan is somewhat comparable, at a 100% cost overrun; the Boston–New York–Washington Railway, U.S.A., a 130% cost overrun, the Copenhagen Metro, Denmark, a 150% overrun; the Montreal Metro Laval extension, Canada, a 160% overrun; the Minneapolis Hiawatha light rail line, U.S.A., a 190% overrun; and the Troy and Greenfield Railroad, U.S.A., 900%. That, perhaps, is an outlier, but it makes the point.

He says shortfalls of 50% are also not uncommon:

Combine the large cost overruns and benefit shortfalls with the fact that business cases, cost–benefit analyses, and social and environmental impact assessments are typically at the core of planning and decision making for megaprojects and we see that such analyses can generally not be trusted. For example, for rail projects, an average cost overrun of 44.7% combines with an average demand shortfall of 51.4%.

I will stop there and go to questions.

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

Mr. Speaker, you know, as the government moves to build Canada strong, there are members of the Conservative Party who have made it very clear that they oppose the Canada Infrastructure Bank in every way and that they oppose the fast-train project, which is a very important project for Ontario and the province of Quebec. Based on what the member has said in regard to that particular project, I am interested in knowing whether he actually supports pipelines in the province of Alberta being expanded. In particular, does he support in full the MOU that was signed off by the Premier of Alberta and the Prime Minister of Canada?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I lack the expertise to give an intelligent response to that question, which is clearly designed just to divert me from the issue of this mind-blowingly expensive project that would destroy lives, ruin property rights and ruin communities that I represent. It would destroy people's lives. That is what is at stake here. The costs of this would be just insane for every single Canadian, including the member. He gets a nice big salary for his $9,000.

However, for people who are never going to be around this, how would this be beneficial to them? Why on earth should people in British Columbia, Alberta and Newfoundland pay for this, so that people who live in downtown Toronto or Montreal can get back and forth and shave 90 minutes off their travel time?

If I lived beside the train station and I could get that benefit tomorrow, not 10 years out, and it is $9,000 for my family, I would not go for it. It is a terrible cost proposition for someone in that situation, and it is an insane cost proposition for someone who happens to live somewhere else. Worst of all is being a property owner and seeing one's property destroyed and one's life destroyed and then being told, “Now here is the tax bill for this thing we have done to screw you over.”

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about the problems with the budgeting for the train, and that is the capital budget alone. I wonder if he could educate us a bit as well about the subsidy the government would have to give, on an ongoing annual basis, in order to run that train, and how much it would cost per Canadian or per rider in order to have a high-speed train with no passengers on it.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the end, the cost is going to be zero, because there is no way that this insane project is actually going to make its way through. We do not have the money to spend $90 billion, which is the estimate. We do not have the money for that. We will spend $3 billion or $4 billion, do a series of expropriations and destroy lives, and then, like the Pickering airport, it will be shut down, unfinished, with no benefit except to the consultants. That is what is going to happen.

However, in the event it actually went through, there is a fascinating estimate. Alto projects 24 million riders per year, which turns out to be significantly higher than the number of people travelling between Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto right now by rail, air and road combined, so somehow, people who are not travelling at all would start travelling because of this amazing transportation hub.

We have a pretty good idea that, in practice, if the costs are not very low and the speed is not high, people do not tend to shift to rail unless the travel time is under two hours. Therefore, it is not likely to generate the expected ridership. That means that revenues would be very low and the subsidies would be in the multiple billions of dollars every year. Again, we cannot afford this.

I suspect that if anything does get built, it will be the Ottawa to Montreal part, at which point the low ridership would show that the whole thing was a catastrophe and we would stop halfway through, much like we did with the Mirabel airport. It was going to be a giant airport, but once we saw the insane costs and the low usage, the whole thing was shut down.

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's excellent analysis on the ROI of the high-speed rail, and particularly the passenger levels, which are unrealistic, and of the fact that there is a lack of a business case here.

Obviously, this is one of the major projects that have been designated. When we were at committee, and we supported Bill C-5 with strong Conservative amendments to improve the bill and pass it through, we heard from a witness who said that if we actually want to increase our GDP, the fastest and best way to do that is to build pipelines to tidewater and get our energy resources to tidewater. In contrast to this investment that is proposed, which would benefit very few people, what are the member's thoughts on that?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the answer is that those are projects that would actually generate expansion to the GDP, because we would be exporting product, whereas this is not going to achieve that goal.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there no way that there could be a recorded vote on an issue as important as this?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Calling for a vote would have to be done by a member of a recognized party.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we request that it be carried on division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent at this time to call it 5:30 p.m., so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.