Bill C-30

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) modifying the Labour Mobility Deduction for eligible tradespeople by increasing the annual limit on expenses that can be deducted and by reducing the distance threshold for eligibility;
(b) making permanent the capital gains tax exemption for the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust or a worker co-operative;
(c) extending the repayment grace period under the Home Buyers’ Plan;
(d) providing temporary immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings; and
(e) improving the interaction of the Electric Vehicle Affordability Program with existing tax rules.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to temporarily set the excise tax rate on gasoline and aviation gasoline to $0.00 and on diesel fuel and aviation fuel to $0.00 for the period beginning on April 20, 2026 and ending on September 7, 2026. It also amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 to implement an additional two-year extension of the 2% cap on the annual alcohol excise duty inflation adjustment, and of the 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada, effective April 1, 2026.
Part 3 amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Bank Act to provide that the Investment Canada Act does not apply in respect of certain transactions made by foreign banks or entities associated with a foreign bank if the transactions are subject to an approval under the Bank Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act or the Insurance Companies Act .
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Bank of Canada Act to combine into a single Act the Bank of Canada’s powers, duties and functions related to the recovery of costs incurred by it for or in connection with the administration of certain Acts. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Payments Act to provide immunity for the Canadian Payment Association and certain individuals from any civil liability, other than in contract, for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties conferred under that Act.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) extend, until October 7, 2028, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers;
(b) remove the description of the regions in which the workers must be ordinarily resident to be eligible for the increase;
(c) provide that those regions are established by regulation; and
(d) provide that paragraph 12(2.3)(b) of that Act is repealed on November 7, 2027.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to reduce the contribution rate for employees, employers and self-employed persons for the year 2027 and each subsequent year.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Canada Transportation Act to require certain individuals and entities to provide the Minister of Transport with information that that Minister considers necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties and functions of that Minister or for the development of transportation policies. The Division also amends that Act to specify the individuals and entities to whom such information may be communicated.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and authorize the Governor in Council to, in certain circumstances, exempt persons, things or activities, or classes of persons, things or activities, from the application of provisions of certain Acts of Parliament, or regulations made under those Acts, that are administered or enforced by the Agency. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act .
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pest Control Products Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Minister of Health to consider, as appropriate, national economic security, regional economic security or national food security, for the purposes of that Act;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to, by order, after that Minister has decided that they do not consider the environmental risks of a pest control product to be acceptable, register or amend the product’s registration to permit its use in the emergency control of a seriously detrimental infestation, or amend, reinstate, or both reinstate and amend the registration of the product, if the Governor in Council considers it necessary to do so to protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security; and
(c) provide that the Governor in Council may establish conditions in the order.

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

[Jill McKnight, Liberal, Delta, BC]

moved that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Madam Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair today. As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue, I have the honour and privilege of beginning debate on Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.

Earlier this week, the Minister of Finance delivered a riveting 2026 spring economic update, which builds upon the momentum of budget 2025 by announcing the next steps in our ambitious plan to build Canada strong for all. The spring economic update provided a clear update on the strength of Canada's economy, giving Canadians confidence in our plan. Through it, and through the legislation, we are offering targeted relief to make life more affordable, support workers and accelerate the construction of homes and major infrastructure across the country.

We are strengthening Canada’s competitiveness and economic growth, while investing in strong, safe communities across the country. We are doing all this at a time when Canadians are navigating a rapidly changing and increasingly fragmented world, one that is more complex, more volatile and, for many people, more costly and unpredictable.

Every day, we seem to awaken to news of trade conflicts and wars that would have seemed unthinkable just a few years ago. These are developments that Canada had no role in precipitating, yet they are developments from which we are not immune. Today's highly integrated global economy is built on tight supply chains and just-in-time deliveries. While these arrangements have created tremendous benefits and efficiencies over the years, they also come with vulnerabilities.

This means that when the system is disrupted anywhere, people are affected everywhere. That includes here in Canada. In response, Canada's new government continues to focus on what we can control here at home: building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our trade partners abroad, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses, with a boost today and a bridge to tomorrow.

With the spring economic update 2026, “Canada Strong for All”, we are proposing the next steps in this plan. It advances our progress of building more affordable homes and the major infrastructure that transforms and connects our economy, while bringing down costs to help Canadians get ahead. It also provides a clear and transparent account of how Canada's economy is performing in an increasingly uncertain world. This transparency is critical in order to lift the fog of uncertainty, help businesses seize new opportunities and give families the confidence to plan for their future.

With our plan, we are building a Canada that is not just strong but good, and not just prosperous but fair, a Canada that is not just for some people most of the time but for all people at all times. It is a plan to build Canada strong for all, and with Bill C-30, we are moving forward with that plan. We have a plan to help grow a strong and resilient economy, but it is Canadian workers who are ultimately going to help build the strongest economy in the G7—

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The interpreter is saying that a phone is ringing or vibrating near the microphones, which is very dangerous for the interpreters' hearing.

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

I would remind members not to have their phone near their microphone.

The hon. member.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, with our plan, we would build a Canada that is not just strong but good, and not just prosperous but fair, a Canada that is not just for some people most of the time but for all people at all times. It is a plan to build Canada strong for all, and with Bill C-30, we are moving forward with that plan ambitiously.

We know that workers are at the centre of that plan. They are the ones who will help us build the strongest economy in the G7. That is why the spring economic update is making historic investments in the Canadian workforce. In order to create new opportunities for young Canadians, we would launch the team Canada strong initiative to recruit, train and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers by 2030-31, aligned to Canada's housing, infrastructure and defence needs. We are expanding training capacity to deliver results at scale, modernizing apprenticeship grants to meet the needs of the current labour force market while working with labourers, employers and provincial and territorial partners to shorten timelines and improve labour outcomes.

We are also moving forward with something that is close to my heart: employee ownership trusts. Because Canadian workers are going to help build a strong and resilient Canadian economy, purpose-built for the 21st century, they should share in the success of the businesses they are helping to build. That is why we are making the employee ownership trust tax exemption permanent. Building and buying Canadian is a core mission of our government, and employee ownerships trusts empower Canadian workers to buy into the businesses they help create and build.

With generational wealth transfers set to occur over the coming decades, EOTs, employee ownership trusts, would enable workers to participate directly and to benefit from the companies they make stronger. That is exciting news for workers all across this country. We have seen examples in the U.K. and the U.S. of true success with employee ownership trusts' exhibiting a collective ownership model that truly shows how successful those businesses can be.

Our government is also enhancing the labour mobility deduction, which recognizes that investing in transportation infrastructure is vital to the success of Canada's economy. Among other things, it allows our workers to go where the work is, because we recognize that some workers in the construction trades incur high expenses to travel for temporary jobs. To recognize these costs, the labour mobility deduction for tradespeople currently provides tax recognition on up to $4,000 per year in eligible temporary relocation expenses for tradespeople and apprentices who relocate to temporary lodging that is at least 150 kilometres closer to a job site where they are performing construction activities.

To recognize additional costs, the spring economic update proposes to increase the annual limit on expenses that can be deducted, from $4,000 to $10,000, indexed annually to inflation, and to modify the minimum distance threshold for relocations, from 150 kilometres to 120 kilometres. Those changes would be effective for 2026 and subsequent taxation years. I am pleased to say that Bill C-30 would make this increased support for Canadian workers a reality, making it more economical for them to bring their skills to where the work is and to build Canada strong.

However, helping workers move to where the jobs are is just one way through which Bill C-30 would support Canadian workers. We know, for example, that many sectors in Canada, including agriculture, the fishing industry, forestry and tourism, rely heavily on seasonal workers due to weather, natural cycles and fluctuating demand. Employment insurance currently provides temporary income to support these workers during off-season periods, when their seasonal work is unavailable, helping them maintain financial stability and remain in their community.

This support also benefits employers and regional economies by ensuring that experienced workers return each season, which helps industries operate efficiently and supports economic activity in many rural and coastal regions across Canada. To better address gaps in EI support between seasons in specific regions, temporary rules were introduced in 2018 to provide up to five additional weeks of EI regular benefits, for a maximum of 45 weeks, to eligible seasonal workers in 13 economic regions.

While this support was set to expire in October 2026, the spring update announced our government's intention to extend this support in the 13 targeted regions until October 2028. Bill C-30 would make this extension a reality, delivering an estimated additional $356 million in support for seasonal workers over the next five years.

We also would be extending the RRSP homebuyers' plan in Bill C-30. To further support workers and their families, the legislation before us would also deliver cash flow support to make it more manageable for Canadians to finance home ownership. The homebuyers' plan would allow first-time homebuyers to withdraw up to $60,000 from their registered retirement savings plan to buy or build a qualifying home, or $120,000 per couple. Under the plan, withdrawals would not be included in income when withdrawn. Instead, they must be repaid to the RRSP over a period of no more than 15 years, starting in the second year following the year in which the withdrawal was made. I know that sounds complicated, but this is good news for anybody who is able to take money out of their RRSP to help purchase a first home.

The spring economic update 2026 proposes to extend the grace period during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their withdrawals, from two years to five years for participants making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028. This would build on the extended grace period that already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025, providing cash flow relief of up to $4,000 per individual per year for the three years over which they are not required to repay the amount into their RRSP. Once again, Bill C-30 would make this support a reality.

Our government also recognizes that supporting Canadian workers means protecting them from the economic impacts of an uncertain world. Military conflicts are disrupting global energy supply, pushing up prices worldwide and leaving Canadians and consumers around the world facing higher prices at the gas pump, creating uncertainty and pressure on household finances. That is why our government recently announced that it is taking action to help Canadians through these challenges by suspending the full amount of the federal fuel excise tax on gasoline and diesel fuel and aviation fuels from April 20 until Labour Day, which is September 7.

By legislating this change, Bill C-30 would reduce pressure on prices at the pump and lower Canadians' bills at the gas station, with expected savings of up to $5.75 on a tank of gasoline and up to $2.30 on diesel when filling up a roughly 50‑litre tank of fuel. All told, it is estimated this would provide over $2.4 billion in total tax relief that would ease the pressure of higher fuel prices on Canadians in 2026, and once again, Bill C-30 would transform this relief into law.

At the same time, this is not the only excise tax relief that Bill C-30 would deliver to bring down costs and support our economy through current challenges. It would also implement a two-year extension of the alcohol excise duty relief to protect brewers, distillers and winemakers during this period of global uncertainty. We know, for example, that Canada's small craft brewers are not only among the finest in the world, which I truly appreciate, but are also important contributors to a growing economy, creating jobs in communities across the country.

There is quite a number of craft brewers that I am quite proud of in my community of Whitby, and I want to see those craft brewers continue to thrive. The Canadian Craft Brewers Association estimates that there are currently nearly 1,200 small and independent craft breweries and brew pubs across Canada, and they are not just making world‑class products. They are the backbone of many communities, supporting thousands of jobs across the country and contributing significantly to local economies.

What makes Canada's craft brewers so great, and popular, is the care and pride they take in producing their fine products and their understanding of the ingredients needed to make a product truly exceptional. In past years, we saw the cost of those ingredients, like hops, barley and other grains, rise significantly due to global inflationary pressures stemming largely from COVID-19 supply chain disruptions, and this presented a real challenge for our brewers in Canada.

That is why our government acted, back in March 2024, to extend budget 2023's 2% cap on the inflation adjustment for beer, spirits and wine excise duties. At the same time, we announced that we were cutting in half the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada for two years, providing a craft brewery with up to $86,952 in additional tax relief in that tax year. It was the right thing to do then, and there was tremendous support from the industry for this relief, which helped the sector weather a period of elevated inflation as economic conditions started to normalize.

As we all know, the world is once again changing rapidly and unpredictably, bringing with it a new round of challenges for many industries, this industry included. Long-standing and fruitful trade relationships that countries have relied on for decades are being fundamentally reshaped by these global changes, leaving economies, businesses and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. Unfortunately, Canada is no exception in this regard, and that includes our craft brewing sector.

We know, for example, that small brewers are particularly exposed to trade-related swings in commodity prices, as they do not enjoy the economies of scale that major industrial brewers enjoy. We know the industry is concerned about these developments, which is why we recently announced that Canada's new government will continue to support Canadian breweries by maintaining for an additional two years the 2% cap on excise duties for beer, spirits and wine.

We similarly announced that we will also maintain for an additional two years the halving of the excise duty rates on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada. For a craft brewery, this second measure means up to about $90,000 in tax relief for the coming year. That is not small potatoes. That is significant support.

Combined, these two support measures are expected to provide over $30 million in relief to the sector through 2028. Bill C-30 would make this extended support a reality. By extending this relief, Bill C-30 would be providing stability at a critical moment, helping small and medium-sized businesses focus on what matters most: growing their operations, supporting local workers and keeping our economy strong and resilient.

I would also note that the bill would take action on the tax front to lower the cost of food production at this time of global uncertainty by implementing our government's commitment to introducing immediate expensing for greenhouse buildings. This means agricultural producers would be allowed to fully write off investments in greenhouses that were acquired on or after November 4, 2025, and that become available for use before 2030. Supporting Bill C-30 also means supporting increased domestic supply and investment in food production over the medium term, which is a major focus for our government in the spring economic update.

In conclusion, I hope I have conveyed, in my allotted time, that Bill C-30 means more than just supporting affordable food and fuel. It means helping key sectors of the economy through an ongoing challenge, or set of challenges, so they can thrive and grow, supporting the communities that depend on them. It means supporting Canadian workers, making it more economical for them to go where the jobs are and making it easier for them to manage the financing of home ownership. It also means advancing our mission to build Canada strong for all.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to look at our government's plan in detail. I would similarly encourage them to carefully consider the measures in Bill C-30 and how they will advance our plan to build a stronger Canada. I encourage them, and I think this goes without saying, to join the government in advancing this plan. We will always welcome their support. It is never too late to have a change of heart.

I know the opposition has to do its job and hold the government to account, but I think we can all agree that there are substantive, significant measures within this bill that would advance a plan for Canada that truly supports Canadians right across the country.

I look forward to the support of my hon. colleagues and welcome any questions.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member spent a fair bit of time in his speech on the excise section. He said the government is halving the rate of excise. I am pretty sure what he meant is that the government is halving the increase on the excise. I would like him to clarify this, so that we do not leave Canadians with the impression that the government is actually reducing the tax on excise. The government is reducing the rate at which it is increasing the excise.

Perhaps the member could comment, then, on whether or not that would bring the excise rate down to the level it was in 2017, before the government started automatically increasing it every year.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, while I appreciate the member opposite's question, I think, just to clarify, what I said was that “we were cutting in half the excise duty rate on the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada for two years,” so this is an extension of a previous measure, which does change the escalator.

There are two different portions of this. The portion I am mentioning is geared toward craft brewers, but in general, we have decreased the escalator to 2%, or capped it at 2%. That is good news because what we have heard from our major brewers in Canada is that they budget for 2% excise duty, so it is exactly what they would expect and what they have asked for.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is concerned about the measures that have been announced, particularly regarding the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA. When it comes to pesticides and herbicides, the government has made it very clear that economic considerations will now be given just as much weight as health considerations.

My colleague served with me on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a long time and so he is somewhat familiar with the issue. I would like him to reassure me in this regard. Of course, we did a lot of work on this in committee. We have voiced our concerns about how inefficient an agency like the PMRA can be when it comes to requests for emergency registration. The PMRA can ask for extensions, fall behind schedule and end up approving the product only after the crisis is already over for the produce grower.

This is much more about efficiency than about economic considerations. Of course, we are not opposed to considering that, but we feel that this is a very slippery slope when it comes to public health. I would like my colleague to reassure me in that regard.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I must say, Madam Speaker, I wish my French was better so I could answer en français. I appreciate the member opposite's question. I enjoyed the time we spent on the agriculture and agri-food standing committee together. The agriculture industry is very important to me.

What I can do is commit to speaking with the hon. member about his concerns and look into the very details of what he has brought forward today. I would be happy to do that with him after the session.

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

Madam Speaker, yesterday the member had some time to talk about the sovereign wealth fund. That is a major aspect of the spring budget update. I think it makes a very powerful message to Canadians that the government and the Prime Minister are committed to get the funds that are necessary to build Canada strong, which is great for all Canadians.

I wonder if the member could just provide his thoughts, upon reflection on the discussions in the chamber yesterday, where the Conservatives and the Bloc came together in opposition to the sovereign wealth fund, as to why they might want to reconsider that position.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak to this a little more.

In my view right now, Canadians across the country believe in our country and in the strength of our country. They are resilient, but they want to help build the strongest economy in the G7. They are aligned with that vision, and I think people want to participate meaningfully in that. The sovereign wealth fund would give them an opportunity, a retail opportunity, to invest small amounts of money that are highly protected from any downside risk and that will get high returns, based on investments across Canada in major pieces of infrastructure that I know many of us are very proud to see are starting to get built.

In my area, at the Darlington new nuclear facility, four small modular reactors are getting built, with 21,700 jobs. It is exciting. It is going to add $38 billion to Canada's GDP over time. This is a good example of a project that will be highly revenue-generating and that many pension plans in Canada and around the world, such as the Canada Growth Fund, have invested in.

The idea here is to make sure the Canadian public can also benefit from the prosperity and wealth that we are building together. That is exciting, and Canadians want to participate.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to specifically drill into what we can expect in an omnibus budget bill in relation to the Pest Control Products Act. The parliamentary secretary referenced that earlier. Will that section of the bill be carved out so that potential health threats through reducing the regulatory process of registering new pesticides, which I am assuming this may be about, will go to the health committee and not just the finance committee?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would have to look into that matter further and get back to the member because I am not aware of whether this particular section would be carved out of Bill C-30. I think the proposition now is that the bill is packaged into one piece, but I would be happy to look into it and get back to the member.

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

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, last year, was elected, in part, on a promise of being a strong fiscal manager. Fast-forward a year to this economic statement and we see, in reality, more spending, higher debt and a budget deficit of over $65 billion, double that of Justin Trudeau, if anyone can believe that.

It is interesting to hear the Liberals talking about their strong fiscal position when, in reality, they are bringing forward a reckless fiscal plan. I want to know how the member can explain this reckless policy at a time when Canadians are struggling to get by and facing a cost of living crisis.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the way the hon. member positions and contorts reality. When we look at what the government had projected in the previous budget, the spring economic update shows that we have $11.5 billion less of a deficit. That is due to the Canadian economy being more resilient.

I do not know why the opposition is so triggered by this stuff. The International Monetary Fund would, arguably, be the world's expert at analyzing the global economy and nations' economies. It has said very specifically that Canada has the strongest fiscal position in the G7. I do not know how opposition members come into this House every day and talk down the Canadian economy. We have seen many signs of progress with foreign direct investment being at an 18-year high and wages doubling the rate of inflation. There is a lot of progress in our economy.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, our government is making responsible choices to support the economy. That is a fact, even though the opposition members seem to be the only ones oblivious to it.

Can my colleague give me concrete examples of how these measures are strengthening prosperity in Quebec and supporting families, businesses and, above all, our young people?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the member that the government is making responsible decisions, whether it is investing in small craft harbours or sports from playground to podium. We are making it easier to access the disability tax credit. We are building a stronger Canada.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman said there are four ways to spend money, and the worst way is spending somebody else's money on others because it is the least efficient and one is least careful with it. We have seen the Liberal government put $200 million into a concrete slab spaceport in Nova Scotia. When we are talking about a sovereign debt fund of $25 billion, that is the government spending taxpayers' money.

I want to ask the parliamentary secretary if he is borrowing money right now to invest in things like spaceports.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, as we know, many Canadians borrow money in order to buy a home and build equity and financial stability for their future. The member should understand that there are ways we can build generational wealth in Canada and give Canadians the opportunity to participate in that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I ask for unanimous consent from the House to split my time with the member for Vaughan—Woodbridge.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, let us make no mistake, this is another Liberal costly credit card budget. This budget has record debt, record debt service charges and record spending. This is just more of the same failed approach we have seen for the last 10 and a half years since the government came into power and inherited a balanced budget. This is a failed approach that is continuing to fail.

We have a deficit now on this budget of $67 billion. That is double the budget that was projected in the last Trudeau budget for this year. Does everybody remember what happened then? That was when the Liberals were going to table a budget of $30 billion for the deficit for this year, and that deficit then was considered so big and so bad that Chrystia Freeland resigned rather than table it. Do members remember that day?

I was in the lock-up that day. It was pure chaos. Nobody even knew whether the budget was going to be tabled or not. Nobody would sign it. When it was dropped, it had no signature. There was no minister, and nobody was willing to take responsibility for even a $30‑billion deficit projected in this year. It precipitated the eventual resignation of Trudeau.

Here we are a year and a half later, and the Liberals are tabling a budget that is twice as bad as that one, which was so bad it brought down a finance minister and a prime minister. They turned to the guy who was supposed to be the adult, who was supposed to have the credentials and be the experienced person who knew that money did not grow on trees, that we could not borrow our way to prosperity and that money borrowed eventually had to be repaid. Everybody thought that was the guy they had gone to.

Here we are at $67 billion. That is double the deficit that was so bad a year and a half ago that it brought down a prime minister. This budget is going to begin to squeeze out other spending. The fastest-growing item in this budget and in the projections is debt service. The current expenditure on debt service is $57.8 billion. This is money that is not being spent on health transfers, on old age security and on building, buying and procuring submarines, which is something the Liberals have not done yet. It is the fastest-growing part, and it is going to go to $80 billion in the short-term horizon that this budget covers.

We also see debt growing through accounting trickery, because the Liberals are going to borrow $25 billion to fund this so-called wealth fund. It is right there, buried in an appendix at the back. They are going to borrow this money, which is a charge against the consolidated revenue of Canada. It has to be paid, but they offset it and pay it as an offsetting asset, which will not be generating money to repay the debt, and certainly not anytime soon, if ever. The debt is actually getting worse than even the deficit number would state because of this wealth fund that the Liberals have created, so let us talk about an exercise in announce-ology.

We heard the previous speaker talk about building Canada. Yes, we need to build in Canada. There are so many things that need to be built in this country. We need a strong Canada. Everybody in the House wants a strong Canada. Every Canadian wants their country to be strong, secure, prosperous, stable and peaceful. These are all the things we want, that all Canadians want, but we are not going to get there by just simply borrowing money and declaring that we have a sovereign wealth fund when there is no wealth backing it. That is not going to get us where we need to go. Think of where we were 10 years ago. The Liberals had a balanced budget. The northern gateway pipeline was approved.

The Liberals came in here with an approved pipeline and a balanced budget. Enbridge could have built that pipeline, and today it would be pumping out half a million barrels a day into world markets, creating $50 million a day at today's prices in revenue, so $20 billion a year. Think of how much in taxes and provincial royalty we could have, and all of these public goods that would have gone toward building schools, hospitals and public services that Canadians rely on, but they cancelled it. It was literally the first thing they did.

Now here they are, having this out-of-body experience, wondering why things have not been built in Canada over the last 10 years and why we have this deficit in infrastructure. They ran in 2015, promising to borrow in the short term in order to build infrastructure that would allow the budget to balance itself, but it did not happen. The deficits happened, and they continue to spiral upward to what we have today, a $67-billion deficit. The opportunity lost and squandered over the last 10 years is devastating, and it has accelerated in the last year and a half since they changed leaders on the other side.

The deficit and productivity crisis are getting worse. In fact, we are coming up on the second anniversary of when the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada declared productivity to be a break-glass emergency. We are at the bottom of our peer countries in investment, plants, equipment and intellectual property. These are the things that improve the productivity of our economy and lead to higher wages, so that people can afford the increased cost of living. The Liberals ignored this productivity emergency. They are not building productivity-enhancing infrastructure; they just talk. They create new Crown corporations, funds and bureaucratic structures, but we do not see real, tangible infrastructure investment.

The last thing, which they are still talking about, was the Alto project. They say it will cost around $90 billion, but an average cost overrun would take that to about $135 billion, and 12 million people a year, according to McGill University, would ride the thing. Doing the math, it would be probably around $500 a ticket just to service the debt that it would cost to build this thing. That is not nation building, it is pet-project annouce-ology, announcing something that people will feel good about, but has no basis in fact.

Why do the Liberals not take that money and twin and build a proper Trans Canada highway? We have seriously dangerous portions of the highway where people are killed regularly. The accidents in northern Ontario are horrific. I come from western Canada, where there are some horrific portions of that highway in B.C.

Think of the productivity drag. We have ports that are ranked among the very worst in the world. Vancouver, Prince Rupert and Montreal all need billions of dollars in improvement. These are the kinds of things that would improve the productivity of our country.

They announced a wealth fund with the same model as the Infrastructure Bank, which was called a failed industrial policy by the Montreal Economic Institute on Monday. Representatives from the Montreal Economic Institute came to committee and said that the Liberals are doing the same thing.

It did not work with the Infrastructure Bank, but instead of winding up the Infrastructure Bank and moving on, they are doubling down and creating a new thing where people who are seeking regulatory relief and self-enrichment or subsidies would lobby the government, and those with the best connections would be chosen by the government. This fund would be politically controlled. Its board would be PMO buddies who would approve the projects that the Prime Minister wants to have approved.

The Prime Minister said as much. The Liberals have talked about, “We can give regulatory relief or subsidies to some of these guys, but we are going to want a piece of the action, too”. Think of the kind of language that they are using.

Why not use a common-sense approach? Let us repeal all of the bad laws the Liberals have passed over the last 10 years that have been chasing investment out of the country and we will see building and construction of a strong, resilient, sovereign Canadian economy. That is the approach Canadians need, not the approach that benefits rent-seekers and insiders rather than the people of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, talk about being completely out of touch with reality and with what is happening around the world and a lack of understanding.

The member even made reference to the port of Montreal, that we need to invest in Montreal. Of all the major projects, maybe that one escaped him. The government is investing in expanding the port of Montreal. We have expansion and growth taking place in every region of the country.

I do not know where the Conservative Party of Canada is today. The Conservatives have demonstrated that they do not care about developing and promoting and building a strong Canada. Their approach is one line, to get out of the way. Tell me another nation that has adopted the far-right position that the Conservative Party of Canada has. Name a country. Give me a country in the G20 that the member actually supports and whose government he believes is doing a good job. I advise the member to also take into consideration the debt-to-GDP financing. Let us make sure it is apples to apples.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the debt-to-GDP, I did not even have time to get to that slippery bit of accounting that these guys talk about. I heard, yesterday in debate, when they talked about a 10% debt-to-GDP ratio. That is if we are pretending that we have the ability, if we wish, to use the entire assets of the Canada pension plan to pay off Canada's debts. That is accounting trickery.

He talked about the port of Montreal. The Liberals have been in office for almost 11 years and they have done nothing to build this infrastructure. It would be one thing if they had just come into power and were looking at this. They have been here for 11 years and they have not done what they promised to do in 2015.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the economic update does not take the current tariff crisis into account. It ignores the fact that President Trump's imposition of new 25% tariffs on all products containing steel and aluminum will create major challenges for many businesses in Quebec and the rest of Canada.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I only had 10 minutes. I am glad I got that question. The hon. member raised the tariffs. This is a terrible moment in which we find ourselves with respect to the tariffs.

Again, this is the government that said it had the answers. It promised and ran in an election campaign promising a deal by last July. The deal has not happened. There is no visible evidence of progress toward a deal. I do not know what the Liberals' plan is. They just seem to think that their own slogans or walking around saying “elbows up” will solve the problem.

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

Madam Speaker, I just have one short question.

How does the hon. member explain the fact that, despite all of the doom and gloom, that Canada is broken, we still have a AAA credit rating?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a credit to past prime ministers, who bequeathed this government a balanced budget in 2015. He may note that it gives me no joy to point out that we are at the bottom of the OECD for per capita GDP and that the standard of living in the country has not improved over the tenure of the government. Yes, they are clinging to that one, but we have seen how they discharge all of their anchors and all of their measurements, all of the bars to which they measure themselves, when necessary.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government, for 11 years, has been the worst investor of any government in Canadian history. There is a litany of projects, but I just want to talk about one today. Moltex Energy Canada was purporting to make molten-salt nuclear reactors in New Brunswick. The Liberal government poured $55 million, taxpayer dollars, into this boondoggle. It just went into insolvency and has been sold off for $11 million.

Can the member for Calgary Crowfoot talk about the government's poor record of investment? It loves spending taxpayer dollars on its schemes, but taxpayers rarely ever get their money back.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is the natural, expected outcome of an economic management system based on rent-seeking and favour-seeking from government.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of the great people of the riding of Vaughan—Woodbridge.

Every Canadian household will pay $3,400 this year for the interest on the federal debt. That is $3,400 per household gone, just to service what the government has borrowed. That number is only going to rise in the foreseeable future. That one number tells Canadians everything they need to know about the Liberal government’s 2026 budget.

The finance minister stood in this place just three days ago and told Canadians, “the dream of Canada is alive and well. Young people, increasingly, see themselves in building Canada strong, and we will be there with them.” I would invite the minister to put down the prepared remarks and speak to the young people I represent.

About 47% of Canadian home builders are laying off workers. In Ontario, that figure climbs up to 65%. More Canadians are starting businesses in the United States than in Canada. Half a trillion dollars in net investment has fled south of the border. How does the minister call this a dream? For too many young Canadians trying to afford a home, find a job or start a business in this country, it is a nightmare from which they cannot awake.

The minister went further and told this House, “Generations will look back at the Prime Minister, the government and the current Parliament and say that we were there for them. We are building long-term wealth and growth.” Indeed, generations will look back at this. They will look back at $80 billion a year in interest payments. They will look back at a government that called debt an investment and mortgaged their future. The government is not building long-term wealth. It is building long-term debt and calling it long-term wealth.

It gets much worse than that. The Prime Minister himself straight up misled Canadians when he claimed, just a few weeks ago, “Affordability is the best it has been in over a decade.” Every Canadian I have spoken to, regardless of who they are, knows this is false.

Let us consider what Conservatives asked for in this update. We asked for the deficit to be capped at $31 billion, the figure Justin Trudeau projected in his last fiscal update, a figure that brought down a finance minister and a prime minister. It is the very deficit that almost toppled a federal government. Under this Prime Minister, the Liberals have more than doubled that number: $66.9 billion this year. That is six straight years of deficits above $53 billion and 11 straight years of deficits from the Liberals.

What is amazing is that the Liberals celebrate their $67-billion deficit as if they are being fiscally responsible and stewards of economic management. Imagine this. The Liberals put forward a budget and have a projected deficit of around $80 billion. They then put out a spring economic statement and say, “Look how amazing we are. The deficit is only $67 billion, still more than double what was projected the year Trudeau was prime minister, but less than what we projected a few short months ago. How great are we?” We do not have to imagine that, because that is exactly what the Liberal Prime Minister has done.

Outside of the pandemic, this is the largest deficit in Canadian history, and spending as a share of our economy is the highest it has been since 1996. The government calls this fiscal discipline. This is not discipline. This is a windfall. There was $60.3 billion in new revenue that walked through the finance minister's door, the product of higher personal and corporate taxes, which hurt our competitiveness, and higher oil prices. What did the Prime Minister do with this extra money? He spent it. The government spent two-thirds of a gift it did not earn and asked Canadians to applaud the restraint.

The trajectory is actually worse than the headline. Public debt charges are rising 50%, from $54 billion today to almost $81 billion five years from now, more than the government spends on health care transfers and more than it collects from every Canadian who pays GST. While interest climbs, growth falls. Real GDP growth has averaged 2.1% over the last 25 years. It is projected to be 1.7% this decade, and 1.5% for decades to come. The government is borrowing more, growing less and spending the difference on interest. It is mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.

Then, there is the sovereign wealth fund. The key word in “sovereign wealth fund” is “wealth”. Norway has surpluses. Saudi Arabia has surpluses. Singapore has surpluses. Canada has a $66-billion deficit and $1.3 trillion in debt. The $25 billion seeding the fund is borrowed. That is not a sovereign wealth fund; it is a sovereign debt fund. Members do not have to take my word for it; they can take the word of independent voices.

Build Canada, a non-partisan civic movement that supports founders and innovators in this country, calls the Canada Strong fund a “war bond”, where Canadians are being asked to “buy equity in the projects” that the government cannot get off the ground by its own merits. The Montreal Economic Institute put it plainly: “We don't need a Canada Infrastructure Bank 2.0”.

The Infrastructure Bank is a cautionary tale. Of 108 projects, only 11 have been completed. The Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the bank will fall $20.1 billion short of its disbursement target. Sixty-seven per cent of its partner funding came from the public sector. The very private capital it was supposed to attract, it is not attracting. The transport committee of this House recommended abolishing it. The government's response was to raise its spending limit by another $10 billion.

Canadian pension funds hold $1.33 trillion in foreign assets, 51% of their total holdings. Let us think about that: 51% of their total holdings not invested in Canada.

Capital is not missing in this country; confidence is.

The spring economic statement mentions artificial intelligence six times across its entire length. There are six mentions and six pillars of the strategy that does not yet exist. The Minister of Artificial Intelligence set his own deadline to deliver the framework. He missed it. His office now tells Canadians the framework is coming soon, but with no specific timeline. Witnesses appearing before the industry committee on this very subject have called the government's consultation process rushed and too corporate-heavy. They have noted the absence of unions, civil society, researchers studying AI work, governance experts, privacy experts and human rights experts. A list of pillar names is not a strategy.

While Canada drafts press releases, our competitors are building the technology that will define the next century of economic growth.

Debt will cost $3,400 per household this year and $80 billion a year in interest by the end of the decade. We have a sovereign wealth fund with no wealth, a strategy with no plan, a finance minister who calls this a dream and a Prime Minister creating an illusion.

Conservatives reject this credit card budget. We would build a paycheque economy where hard work brings home a powerful paycheque, where families can afford groceries and can afford their homes, and where neighbourhoods are safe and opportunity in this country is real. That is the promise of Canada, and that is the promise we will keep.

That is why I move this amendment, seconded by the member for Parkland:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, since the Bill reflects the Prime Minister's approach to credit-card budgeting by:

(a) adding $37.5 billion in inflationary, net new spending;

(b) running a deficit more than double the $31 billion last projected when Justin Trudeau was prime minister;

(c) continuing to drive inflation up through the creation of more bureaucracies, rather than taking meaningful action to confront the affordability challenges facing Canadians by axing the taxes on groceries, eliminating the fuel standard and industrial carbon tax, scrapping the food packaging tax to make life affordable again; and

(d) failing to cut inflationary spending, currently being racked up on the country's credit card, such as the Alto rail project, the Liberal gun grab, excessive use of external consultants, foreign aid, corporate welfare, and taxpayer-funded handouts for fake asylum claimants.

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

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative Party has adopted a new-found “Get out of the way; I do not care” attitude. I reference the member's opening comments, when he was talking about young people and doing things for youth.

Within the spring update, there is a serious commitment to increase skilled trades Red Seal holders by between 80,000 and 100,000 over the next five years. The Conservative Party is actually voting against that particular project. I wonder how the member can justify it. Given his opening remarks regarding being there and supporting youth, why would the Conservative Party oppose a federal initiative to deal with Red Seal workers?

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, $81 billion is the amount of money the Liberal government under the Liberal Prime Minister wants to mortgage away for our young people's future. The Liberal Party and the Liberal government had a chance to demonstrate that they were different. The Liberals had a year to say that they are a different government now and are going to reject the incompetent and fiscally irresponsible ways of the Justin Trudeau Liberal government, but they did not. The mask came off. It is the same Liberal, costly government it always has been.

In response to the hon. member, I would ask this: Where are the young people going to work? The Liberals have driven investment out of this country. Companies do not want to open businesses here. People do not want to stay here. There is a trillion-dollar gap between FDI and capital flight in this country. Where are the young people going to work? The Liberals should start acting fiscally responsibly and stop talking and pretending as if they were.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to his speech, my colleague has moved a great amendment to what is a disastrous fiscal update from the government. It seems to be unable, despite labelling itself as a “new” Liberal government, to break itself of the habit of continuing to rob the piggy bank of young Canadians and future generations to blow the credit card budget on Liberal fat-cat projects.

I wonder if my colleague from Vaughan—Woodbridge has a few more comments to put on the record about what a disaster this fiscal update is for Canadians.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we would think, given all the turmoil and the disastrous record of the Liberal government over the last 10 years, this “new” government, as Liberals like to label themselves, would have easily been able to divorce itself from the disastrous track record and trajectory of the Liberal government. Instead, as we learned this week, it has decided to double the deficit and increase the interest payment on the debt to $80 billion, money that could be used for health care transfers, to lower taxes or for housing. Instead, it is being used to rob a generation of growth and opportunity.

We thought the current Prime Minister would be different. Instead, we realize he is just another Liberal.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in its economic update, the government announced a half measure for improving EI eligibility. It is extending the existing measure, but only until 2028. In our opinion, the spring gap is a perennial issue that demands a permanent solution. We are advocating for a comprehensive EI reform.

I would like to know my colleague's thoughts.

[Michael Guglielmin, Conservative, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like many things in this budget, there are no solutions. This budget is full of empty promises. It is full of nothing more than a bunch of announcements that do nothing for people other than to serve the purpose of adding debt and robbing opportunity from a future generation.

Unfortunately, jobs are fleeing this country. Young people are going to have less and less opportunity. We have seen that over $1 trillion of capital flight has occurred here in Canada, with the difference between foreign direct investment and capital flight accelerating. More and more people are going to require employment insurance if this keeps up because, really, the government is not providing the conditions for any future opportunity in this country.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with my highly respected colleague from Jonquière.

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

Does the member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will be sharing my time with this wonderful colleague, which means I will have to step up my game. After all, there needs to be some balance in these 10-minute speeches.

I would like to begin by acknowledging the exemplary, extraordinary and remarkable work of the interpreters who interpret our questions every day. They are essential to ensuring the right of French speakers to work in their language. I would like to offer them my sincerest apologies and tell them that I am truly sorry about the phone that apparently vibrated a moment ago. It was not in the right place. Let me assure them that the other phone is well out of the way. The one with the timer running is properly positioned on my desk. This proves that even members who try to be careful every day can make mistakes. I would like to remind my colleagues in the House to always be mindful of this. I appreciate the interpreters.

It will come as no surprise when I say that the Bloc Québécois was very disappointed with this economic update. To sum up what I am about to say, this economic update is in serious need of an update itself. The Liberals need to go back to the drawing board.

For one thing, we were very surprised that there is still nothing about the new 25% tariffs imposed on goods from Quebec and elsewhere that use steel or aluminum. It is important to note that the Americans have decided to impose a 25% tariff on the total price of the product even if steel or aluminum makes up only a tiny percentage of the final product. That comes with very serious repercussions.

We asked the government some questions before the economic update was tabled. We were told that the answers would be in the economic update. Now we have it, but there are no answers in there. We are asking questions, and we are being asked what we want to eliminate. We want to eliminate oil and gas subsidies; that is what I answered earlier.

We are not happy, but we are here to work as an intelligent and constructive opposition. I know that the parliamentary secretary is pleased to hear this, since he is listening carefully to my speech. I think he might be willing to accept our olive branch. Still, there is much to do and we have our work cut out for us. This is a serious matter. We are disappointed with the Liberal majority's arrogant new approach of negotiating behind closed doors, which meant that we were not invited for any discussions before the economic update was tabled. It is easy to say that the opposition complains all the time, but if the government would talk to us a little, if it would take our proposals into consideration, perhaps the opposition would complain less.

Speaking of proposals, as we have said many times, the Bloc Québécois did its homework. This reminds me of the last election campaign, when journalists all said that the Bloc Québécois platform was the one that looked most like a government's election platform. That is rather ironic. The 11 proposals we made are serious, reasonable proposals. We are surprised that they were not taken into account. As an opposition, we do not expect our proposals to be accepted in full all the time, but at the very least, we expect them to be considered. In this case, they were not considered at all.

We are concerned about a number of measures in the economic update. First, there is the elimination of the excise tax, which we have talked a lot about. As we have said from the beginning, lowering taxes on gasoline is not a solution. I know that many members here support that approach and want to remove even more taxes, but just look at the price of gas in Quebec and Canada this morning. It is clear that the oil companies have an insatiable appetite. They have no limits. They will take whatever they can get. The government cut the excise tax by 10¢, and the oil companies are already making up the difference. They seize every opportunity to take more. They suck up everything they can get and put it in their pockets. This needs to stop.

That does not mean that the government should not help people. Obviously, it is difficult to be against a proposal like eliminating the excise tax. Members think that they are giving people some breathing room, but look at the result. Gas is up to nearly $2 a litre in Montreal this morning. This is not working.

What we need is direct support. The government could have shown some intelligence and creativity by proposing, for example, a partial reimbursement of fuel costs for business owners and people who use gas and diesel for work.

Targeted measures could have been used to help low-income individuals by compensating them without giving that money to the oil companies. As for the excise tax, we are seeing the results this morning. It is sad to say, but my I see that the money that was supposed to go into people's pockets ended up in the pockets of oil companies. I am not even talking about the scandal of the oil and gas subsidies. These subsidies are a tradition. They are part of Canada's DNA. We can denounce them all we want and ask the government to abolish them, but it will never do that. The lobbies are far too powerful, and there are people making money from this somewhere. We find this deeply deplorable.

We could be saving $26 billion over five years and using that money to invest in social housing and to provide a decent retirement pension for people aged 65 and older, because retirees aged 65 to 74 are currently being discriminated against. That money could be invested in many other areas, including EI reform. The government could do that instead of taking the EI surplus and putting it into its own coffers. It is a bad habit that tends to happen far too often. That money belongs to workers.

The EI system pays out benefits to only 60% of those who contribute. That is both ironic and embarrassing. I do not know anyone in my circle who would agree to pay for home insurance if the insurance company told them they only had a 60% chance of receiving a payout if their house burned down. Anyone would think about it for 30 seconds and then look for another company. Our workers' hands are tied. They are stuck dealing with the federal government, which is administering an EI system that it should not even be administering, since that responsibility should be returned to the provinces and Quebec. I think Quebec would do a much better job running an EI system. We have solutions to help people.

Measures for the workforce were announced. That is all well and good, the intention is noble, and we cannot oppose that. However, what we would say to the Liberals is that there has been an agreement with Quebec since 1997. It seemed like we were telling them something new when they read their economic update. They are supposed to know this better than we do, since they are in government. They should have had prior discussions with the Quebec government. However, judging by the reactions of the new Premier, the finance minister and the people in Quebec City, I think they have not talked much. That is concerning to us. We will be keeping a close eye on this.

Another thing that really concerns us is the increased health and safety risks when it comes to food. The government is changing the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and, if I understood correctly, it is going to change the Pest Management Regulatory Agency's regulations to include consideration of economic issues, not just public health and safety issues. We need to be careful about how we do that.

As everyone knows, I am not acting in bad faith. I was very proud to work on the agriculture and agri-food file here for many years, right up until January. We talked a lot about this issue, and it is true that the inefficiency of these agencies was causing problems. Our issue was with the lack of efficiency. We did not see a need to change the mandate. We are concerned about the fact that the government wants to change the mandate because this is a slippery slope. This will have to be studied very seriously in committee. I hope that the government will give us the time we need to do that and that it will not start holding all the meetings in camera to silence the opposition, because we have serious concerns about public health.

The pesticide and herbicide lobbies are extremely powerful. Members will recall what happened with the so-called tiger team. That was really serious, but unfortunately, it did not get much media coverage. That shows just how much power these people have. I am concerned.

That said, I would like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to be more effective and efficient in responding to on-farm emergencies. When someone requests an emergency approval but receives no authorization, their crops can be ravaged by insects, disease or some other problem. Sometimes the authorization arrives after the damage is done. That does not mean that human safety was compromised; the product was approved. However, the processing is not being done fast enough. Agency staff should do some overtime now and then to keep up with demand. That was the issue. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's request was about efficiency, not a change in mandate.

My time is running out; sadly, this happens to me a lot here.

Once again, the government is giving the minister the authority to suspend the application of a number of laws. That still worries me. What is this bad habit? It seems that every time I rise in the House, it is to complain about the government trying to suspend the application of laws. Three-year orders are very worrisome. We have serious proposals, such as a wage subsidy to help businesses out and give them some breathing room. We are prepared to work with the government, but it has to be willing.

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

Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge the member is extending his hand in collaboration. I think some standing committees can be very effective. I find that a lot depends on the different personalities and subject matters.

The member raised the issue of agri-food. It was not that long ago I was in the Philippines. We were talking about an expansion where an office could be established to look at dozens of countries and how we could expand. How we can enhance our agri-food system is a wonderful topic to talk about.

I look forward to the member's contributions at the standing committee level, and I hope there will be a higher sense of collaboration going forward.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since the parliamentary secretary clearly does not often attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I would like to inform him that, in my humble opinion, it is the most outstanding House of Commons committee. Unfortunately, I have not served on it since January, but I do want to point out that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who took over for me, is doing a great job and that he is up to the task. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work co-operatively.

Of course, when it comes to exports to the Asia-Pacific region, there are a lot of people to feed there. The concerns that I raised have to do with the mandate changes at the CFIA and the PMRA. I would ask the government to be vigilant in that regard. We would be pleased to work together to conduct a serious study in committee so as not to compromise public health.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned several cases where the government failed to consult properly and where it lacked transparency. He talked about a worrisome trend that we have seen this week now that the Liberals have a majority in committee. They have been holding committee meetings in camera and preventing Canadians and other parliamentarians from having access to important information and participating in debates.

Can my colleague tell us more about his concerns?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must first commend my colleague on the quality of her French. It is exemplary. She seems very nice.

The government's authoritarian tendencies are worrisome indeed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is paying close attention and will perhaps take the opportunity to reassure us on that score. Now that I am my party's whip, I oversee all the committees. Having read our member's reports, I know that the government is quick to convene in camera and clean house. The government is in the process of taking back control of the order of precedence. I hope that this feverish activity is temporary, the result of having recently secured a majority through backroom deals, and that the Liberals will become reasonable again. Asking that an open hand be extended comes off well in public, but accepting that hand is another matter.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague pointed out that no negotiations have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the government to determine what might make this economic statement acceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Some things are quite obvious, such as the fact that the federal government has never reimbursed Quebec for services provided to asylum seekers or for the carbon tax.

I would like my colleague to talk about these two glaring inequities by the federal government.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, “inequities” is putting it mildly. I would say it amounts to outright theft. In the case of the carbon tax refund for money people had not yet paid, we are talking about $14 million owed to Quebec. This is a grave injustice. We even held an opposition day on this issue, yet the government never even considered it. It is the same with asylum seekers. Quebec is owed over $700 million.

The Bloc Québécois does not wish to harm Canada. What we want is to protect our people in Quebec and get what is rightfully ours. We are, of course, working to build the country of Quebec in the meantime, and we are more than eager to do so. When we see such blatant theft, it just makes us even more eager for the next referendum.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that comes as a surprise to no one. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé made it very clear that the Bloc Québécois is disappointed in the budget statement, as did my colleague from Mirabel in his response to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. I think that his answer was very well put and it showed all the shortcomings of the economic update.

This week, in response to oral questions, I heard my Liberal colleagues say many times that they want to build Canada. The update document does talk about building Canada. However, I would like to finish the sentence, because I think that, in reality, they are building Canada while ignoring Quebec. That is what the document should have been called, and I will explain why.

I have a little tip for my colleagues. When we want to understand the intent of a government document or proposal, like a budget or an update, there is usually a fairly simple trick. All anyone has to do is search how many times certain words appear in the document. My colleagues will see where I am going with this.

Just for fun, I checked to see how many times the word “forest” or “forestry” appears in the economic update. Those words appear six times. Then, I checked to see how many times the word “aluminum” appears in the economic update. We see that word 12 times, which is a bit better. I also checked to see how often the term “climate change” was used, and the answer is five times.

When I searched for the word “gas”, I hit the jackpot at 43 times, but the real winner was the word “oil”, which is used 153 times in the economic update.

Why am I talking about this? We immediately see where the government's priorities lie. Given what is happening right now, the economic update should have responded to the tariff crisis to help the industries in Canada that are currently facing the highest tariffs.

Which two industries in Canada are facing the highest tariffs? First, there is the aluminum industry. As we know, primary aluminum producers are managing to get by without too many problems, but this is catastrophic for aluminum processors. The 50% tariffs are catastrophic for them. Many are operating on credit and struggling to stay afloat right now. There will be consolidations unless the government takes action. That is for the aluminum industry, which is mentioned only 12 times in the economic update.

The other sector facing the highest tariffs, and the one most severely impacted by U.S. policies, is the forestry sector. It is subject to 45% tariffs. This figure is the sum of a 10% tariff, countervailing duties, and anti-dumping duties. This means that every time a forestry producer ships $100 worth of products to the United States, $45 is taken from them, stolen. Not many companies can survive with margins cut by 45%.

There is another key factor that has emerged in recent weeks. In fact, we were the ones who sounded the alarm for the government, pointing out that, under a new decree, 25% of the total value of aluminum products will now be subject to tariffs, which is destroying Quebec's industrial base.

Is this addressed in the economic update? No, at no point does it offer a solution to the problems facing the aluminum and forestry sectors. This makes me think that the goal is to build Canada while ignoring Quebec.

I will return to the many repeated proposals we have made. I can talk about that right now. Time and again, we have proposed solutions to the government for addressing the tariff crisis surrounding softwood lumber. The government has always turned a deaf ear to them. What we see in the economic update when the word “forest” appears is a rehashing of what was announced back in August and subsequently expanded. Nothing is new under the sun. We are still in the same position with a liquidity program ill-suited to the needs of people in the industry.

We have made concrete proposals to the government with people involved in the forestry sector. We proposed that the government buy back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month.

The government would not necessarily have to pay out this money, since the anti-dumping duties that are currently being held in the United States will eventually be recovered. The government could therefore recoup its costs. We proposed this solution, but the government never wanted to talk to the Bloc Québécois to try to implement it. The same goes for aluminum.

If the economic update is about building Canada while ignoring Quebec, what does this economic update actually contain? In my view, the government's primary intention is to build infrastructure to export energy. The fact that the word “gas” appears 43 times and the word “oil” appears 153 times clearly reflects the government's intention to build oil and gas infrastructure in order to export more oil and gas.

We had this discussion at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We heard from Hydro-Québec. Sometimes I like to be a bit mischievous. I asked Hydro‑Québec, which has built two major lines allowing Quebec to export energy to the United States, one to New York and the other to Massachusetts, how much financial support it had received from the federal government to do so. The answer was zero. The federal government did not offer Hydro-Québec a single penny in financial support to develop this energy export infrastructure. We are talking about clean energy, about hydroelectricity. It is a different story when it comes to the oil and gas sector.

What does the economic update contain? It includes an increase in the carbon capture and storage tax credit. That information is not coming from me. The former environment minister has stated on numerous occasions that more money has been invested in promoting carbon capture and storage than in certain carbon capture and storage projects themselves. It is a bottomless pit, and it is completely illogical to try to produce clean oil, but notwithstanding that, we know that Export Development Canada, or EDC, put $102 million into the carbon capture and storage sector in 2023. In 2022, $464 million was poured into this sector, which in no way serves the interests of Quebeckers. I will come back to EDC. When we look at the overall support for the gas and oil sector, we see that it is completely outrageous.

The federal government is trying to respond to a tariff crisis by supporting the Canadian energy sector. The question that troubles me is this: Who benefits from the Canadian energy sector? People looking for an answer to that question will find something quite shocking. When looking at the ownership structure of the major oil companies, it becomes clear that 80% of these major oil companies are owned by foreign interests. I repeat, 80% of the ownership structure of the major players in the oil sector belongs to foreign interests. Furthermore, 60% of the ownership structure belongs to American interests. What does this mean? It means that the energy lobby, which aims to boost the Canadian economy, is working to the benefit of American interests.

Here is a hair-raising fact. From 2021 to 2024, these people made $131 billion in profits. Did they invest in their infrastructure? No. They asked the federal government to take on the risk for the infrastructure while they raked in the profits. I have never seen a model like that. Capitalism is based on people assuming risks with their own money and then reaping the profits. That is not what the oil companies want. For the oil companies, it means having the government assume the risk so they can reap the profits. They produce 12.3 billion dollars' worth of capital flight.

The federal government left Quebec out of its economic update. Instead, it is trying to help the big oil and gas companies that send their money to the United States. That is completely outrageous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I must admit that I am rather surprised. He seems to believe that Quebec was overlooked in this economic update. However, what I see, when I read the update, is a historic investment for small craft harbour infrastructure that coastal communities have been waiting for for a long time. There are many such communities in the Atlantic provinces, but also in Quebec. This is a historic, long-awaited investment.

We are also investing in sports to expand access to sport for young people. That will benefit all of Canada, including Quebec. There is also the update on the housing strategy. In January, Quebec and Ottawa signed an agreement to speed up the construction of housing and the infrastructure needed to support housing construction. There are projects of national interest. I am thinking about the Contrecoeur port. Does my colleague agree that these are important investments for Quebec?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have read the entire document. The whole problem is that the major investments are being made not in Quebec, but in the oil and gas sector. The accelerated capital cost allowance in the economic update applies only to the gas sector. It does not apply to other sectors that are specific to Quebec.

There is nothing for our economic sectors. There is only money for the oil and gas sector. The goal of this economic update is to give even more support to Canada's energy sector using taxpayer dollars. This is being done at Quebec's expense, just as Quebec is dealing with one of its worst tariff crises ever thanks to the United States.

If my colleague does not find that outrageous, I can draw him a picture.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his thoughtful remarks.

As he can see from my exchanges with him and his colleagues in French, I want to understand the needs of all Canadians, including those in Quebec.

We share concerns about forestry and the government's lack of attention to major challenges facing our communities. What struck me was the absence of the term “substance abuse”. The government eliminated the position of minister of mental health and addictions and does not seem to care about the crisis plaguing my community.

To what extent could Quebec be affected by this as well?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent French, even though she has not been speaking it for very long. Everyone in the Bloc Québécois agrees that she is remarkable.

In my view, issues relating to substance abuse and health fall under the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. I am not trying to avoid her question.

I would, however, like to point out that I have rarely agreed with the leader of the official opposition, but I do agree with him on one thing. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that the major oil and gas companies are acting like corporate welfare claimants by asking the federal government for money. I know the Conservatives are in favour of defending the energy sector tooth and nail, but they would not stoop so low as to take money from Canadians and hand it over to the greedy oil and gas sector, which is making record profits and sending them back to the United States.

On that point, I congratulate the leader of the official opposition.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

As we have seen and as we know, the U.S. President has increased tariffs on aluminum- and steel-based products. This will have a major impact on Quebec SMEs. The Bloc Québécois spoke about this often prior to the economic update. The economic update came, but had not a word to say about it.

Can my colleague tell us more about that?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we were all astonished, especially since the leader of the Bloc Québécois seems to have told the Prime Minister about the situation. The following day, after the Prime Minister was made aware of the problem, he told us that we would get an answer in the economic update.

Then, lo and behold, the economic update arrived with absolutely nothing. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that it was on the way and that we would get an answer. Can we take him at his word? The next few days will tell whether the government walks the talk, but this is deeply concerning.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by informing you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

For over a year now, I have had the pleasure of serving as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, and since day one, our government has remained focused on what we can control: building a stronger Canadian economy, diversifying our international trade partners, managing the budget rigorously and responsibly and supporting Canadians who are struggling because of the cost of living. We are on the right track. We have more work to do, but over the past year, we have been on track, and our 2026 spring economic update is the next step in our plan to build a stronger Canada for everyone.

Building Canada strong and meeting our housing, infrastructure and defence needs will require workers who are already qualified. Our workers are the engine of our economy in Canada. That is why, with the economic update, we are launching our plan to recruit and train workers, and hire 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers over the next five years. That is important because we want to build big, but we need the manpower to do it. We will modernize the Red Seal program to reduce certification delays and improve national consistency. We will introduce online exams and digital logbooks and create a single national registered apprenticeship number. All of this will help to simplify the process.

We will also introduce financial incentives. As part of their Red Seal certification training, apprentices have to accumulate a certain number of hours of on-the-job training, which is essential to their apprenticeship. To help employers hire, train and retain apprentices, we will put in place wage subsidies of up to $10,000 for their first-year salary. This is a financial incentive to support employers who give our apprentices on-the-job training opportunities.

Of course, there is also the classroom training component. We will be providing apprentices with an additional $40 week in income while they are completing their mandatory classroom training. This amount will be in addition to measures already in place, such as employment insurance benefits for eligible apprentices and the student loan and grant program. We will also introduce a new $5,000 success bonus upon obtaining Red Seal certification. By comparison, the previous version of this bonus was approximately $2,000, so this is a substantial increase. Why is this being introduced now? It is because we want to provide apprentices currently in their training program with an incentive to complete their training and obtain the Red Seal.

When we talk about training the next generation, it is also important to offer meaningful employment experiences. That is why I am very pleased that the economic update reiterates our government's decision to increase funding for the Canada summer jobs program. We are already seeing real results. In my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, this represents an investment of more than $1.5 million for the summer of 2026, which will support more than 400 jobs for young people in my region. This includes jobs in a variety of sectors, such as summer camps, tourist sites, care homes, day cares and the cultural community, to name a few. In addition to giving young people a great job experience, it also supports our community organizations, our small and medium-sized businesses and our municipalities because it allows them to hire summer workers who are essential to their activities. That in itself is great news.

I would also like to draw my colleagues' attention to the fact that Canada covers a vast area and its economic realities vary across the country. Many sectors, including agriculture, fishing, forestry and tourism, especially in rural areas, rely heavily on seasonal workers. As we know, these industries have to cope with weather and seasonal constraints, as well as variations related to fluctuating demand. For that reason, EI provides temporary income support to these workers during the off-season, while they wait for a new season of employment to begin. It gives them some financial stability and lets them remain in their community.

Supporting seasonal workers through EI this way also benefits employers in the sectors I mentioned earlier, as well as our regional economies, by allowing employers to retain skilled workers and to ensure they remain on hand for the coming season.

A program consisting of five additional weeks of EI was created in 2018 to support seasonal workers. It was active in 13 of the country's economic regions where seasonal work employs a significant portion of the labour market, as it does in Madawaska—Charlotte and Restigouche-Albert, which make up the entirety of my riding.

These measures enable seasonal workers to receive five additional weeks of benefits. This is essential because it allows them to bridge the gap between one working season and the next, thereby avoiding what is commonly referred to as the spring gap. These support measures were initially intended to be temporary and were due to expire in October 2026. My colleagues from the affected regions and I have held discussions with our colleagues, and I am very pleased to say that the economic update has announced additional funding to extend the five‑week measure, so that seasonal workers in our regions can continue to receive benefits during what is known as the spring gap.

The economic update also extends some of the temporary measures we put in place in response to the tariff dispute. For example, the one-week waiting period for receiving EI benefits has been temporarily removed. Initially, this was intended to last for six months. We have extended this period until the fall and will reassess the situation at that time. This is good news for workers.

In the economic update, we also announced that we will make it easier to access the disability tax credit. The disability tax credit provides significant tax relief to persons with disabilities and their supporting family members. As members know, eligibility for the credit serves as a key requirement for other federal supports, including the Canada disability benefit. It is important for us, as a government, to ensure that people who need help are able to access all the assistance to which they are entitled.

We realized that certain bureaucratic procedures could sometimes make it extra challenging to access the disability tax credit. For example, health care professionals are required to certify a person's disability and its impact on their daily activities by filling out a form that can sometimes be time-consuming. Our experience over the past few years has shown us that, for certain medical conditions, it would be possible to streamline the process and reduce paperwork to simplify the process for health care professionals. That is why we announced in the economic update that we will implement a simplified application process for individuals with a formal diagnosis of certain long-lasting medical conditions. It is important to note that the eligibility criteria are not changing, but based on our experience, we have observed that people with certain illnesses do, in fact, meet the criteria, so they will no longer be required to fill out the entire form.

I will give a concrete example. If a health care professional certifies on the form that their patient has Alzheimer's disease, they will not need to answer all the questions about how the disease is affecting their daily life, because that information has already been documented, and we will consider the person with the disease eligible for the tax credit. This will apply to more than 40 medical conditions, such as stage three or higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cystic fibrosis and schizophrenia. A whole series of other medical conditions are listed, and this will simplify the process for people living with those conditions.

We will also expand the list of health care professionals who can certify eligibility for the tax credit in order to ease the burden on health care workers. Podiatrists, physiotherapists, speech therapists and occupational therapists will all be able to certify certain conditions related to their areas of expertise. These are just some of the various measures we are putting in place to ensure that people who need help actually get the support they need.

This economic update brings more good news for the Atlantic provinces. As we know, investments in small craft harbour infrastructure were long overdue. This was a long-standing request from coastal communities. I am pleased to say that, in this budget, the Atlantic provinces have been heard, and we will see historic investments in this harbour infrastructure, which plays a vital role in the economies of rural and coastal communities.

I look forward to hearing questions from my colleagues, and I hope we can work together to pass this economic update. I hope that my colleagues in the opposition will support us, because I believe this update contains good news for all Canadians.

[Clifford Small, Conservative, Central Newfoundland, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech on the spring economic statement. I know that he comes from a riding in New Brunswick where salmon are paramount in Restigouche.

The Minister of Fisheries announced $82 million towards making Atlantic salmon as they once were, in a great healthy state. At the same time that she made that announcement, she cut two biodiversity centres, which were long established, one in New Brunswick, the member's home province, and one in Nova Scotia.

In my province of Newfoundland and Labrador, she has not even laid out contracts for river guardians this year. If we do not protect spawners, then there will be no spawn, and salmon will be finished.

Will the member question the minister to make sure she puts her money where her mouth is?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear my colleague mention the $3.8-billion nature strategy, which includes an investment of $82 million to protect Atlantic salmon. The Restigouche River is internationally recognized for its waters, where salmon are plentiful. It is in my riding and I am very proud of that.

I have actually been having ongoing discussions with the Minister of Fisheries regarding this investment. I look forward to seeing how these investments will translate into real measures to better protect salmon habitat in the Restigouche River and other salmon-rich rivers in Atlantic Canada. In fact, we are also investing in other projects to protect salmon habitat in our river.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague ended his speech by saying that he is pleased that Atlantic Canada was heard in the economic update. I can tell him that I am sad that Quebec was not heard.

Quebec is grappling with the worst of the tariff crisis. The two sectors with the highest tariffs are softwood lumber and aluminum, and there is absolutely nothing for these sectors in the economic update, even though it was supposed to respond to the crisis we are currently facing.

Does my colleague think that is acceptable?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not share my colleague's interpretation. When we look at the economic update, we can see that there are positive benefits for the whole of Canada, whether in Atlantic Canada, Quebec or elsewhere in the country.

I would like to again mention small craft harbour infrastructure. I know this is important for Quebec. Then there are the EI measures we announced in relation to the spring gap. That was a Bloc Québécois request. I am also thinking of the investments being made in Quebec in several major infrastructure projects of national interest, which the Bloc Québécois has often spoken to us about in the House. I am thinking of the update we are making regarding housing. Quebec and Ottawa signed an agreement as recently as January to speed up housing construction in Quebec.

When my colleague says there is nothing for his province in the economic update, I would invite him to take another look and see that there are in fact a number of positive benefits for the whole country.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member across said that he is very proud of the government's investments. I wonder if he would tell this House if he is proud of the government's $50-million investment in the molten salt nuclear reactor scam in his very own province by Moltex. The company has now gone into insolvency. It is being sold off for $11 million; 55 million taxpayer dollars down the drain.

Is that member proud of that investment?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are investing in several projects of national interest.

This includes projects related to various types of energy, such as clean energy. I am thinking in particular of our investments in offshore wind energy off the coast of Nova Scotia.

I am also thinking of all the mining projects currently in development, including one in New Brunswick that is under discussion with the federal government.

There are also small and medium-sized projects that will have a transformative impact on our communities.

We are making many investments that will support the energy sector both in Atlantic Canada and across the country.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to ask questions relative to Labrador. I will speed it up a little bit, but I am also happy that my colleagues from Newfoundland and Labrador are here because it gives me an opportunity through my question to talk about the great things our government is doing in Labrador.

We have heard about the announcement for—

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

We need time for a response. The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has 10 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker, the economic update confirms that we have reached the defence spending target of 2% of GDP. This is excellent news, and it translates into investments across the country, including in my colleague's riding of Labrador.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Winnipeg South Centre.

The spring economic update, much like the budget, is a wonderful exercise in the democratic process. It is not only an opportunity for the prime minister and the minister of finance to report back to Canadians and indicate the direction of the government. It is also an opportunity, through a variety of different iterations, for grassroots Canadians, constituents, to convey their needs, their wants and the opportunities that exist in our country back to the people who represent them, such as me, here in Ottawa.

I try to create time every week, whether I am in Ottawa or in Winnipeg, to sit down with people I represent in order to have a conversation, whether through email correspondence, a phone call, in-person meetings or at events. It is an opportunity for them to connect with me and help me understand what they want said on their behalf on the floor of the House of Commons.

My speech today will be framed around one question: What builds a strong community? For me and for many people I represent, it is about connection of people and places. More specifically, I want to talk about opportunity, belonging and stability. I am going to start with sport.

I was extremely privileged and blessed, as a young person growing up in Winnipeg South Centre, to have been raised in a community filled with people who wanted to give back. I am thinking of my coaches in baseball, John Matas and Ray Ali, and my coaches in football, Jon Romu and Gerry Urbanovich, who gave so much back to my teammates and I. They taught us about the importance of teamwork, leadership and perseverance. Sport brings us together and creates a sense of belonging. Like the arts, it is a practice of expression. It is a reflection of us back to others.

In addition to creating a deep sense of belonging, sport is also critically important from the perspective of both our physical and mental health. I can remember having the privilege of being the head coach of the Kelvin Clippers football team, where I had been a player in high school, and working with a number of students who came from difficult situations, whether that was conflict in the home, a lack of success in what we would have traditionally deemed as such in the confines of a classroom, or just looking for something to belong to. Sport, particularly team sport, was an avenue for them to grow, develop and be a part of something bigger than themselves and to do so in a way that contributed positively to their mental and physical health.

The spring economic update's announcement of an investment of $755 million, a monumental and generational investment not only in Canadian athletes but also in participants in sport across the country, is going to be a game changer that brings about a healthier sense of belonging in our communities.

I want to now turn to opportunity. I recently met with Fred Meier, who is the president of Red River College Polytech in my hometown of Winnipeg. Alongside Fred, I had the opportunity to chat with a number of members of the faculty associations. One of the things they raised is the existence, unfortunately still, of a stigma that exists in our country around the trades.

There is a belief among some people that the only path to prosperity through higher education can come through traditional programming at universities. This could not be farther from the truth. Not only are the trades and skilled workers who occupy the positions within that domain working valuable jobs in terms of being able to people prosper economically and financially, but they are also critical to the growth of our country. What young people in this country need right now, vis-à-vis the trades, is opportunity. The government's growth agenda is going to help them realize that.

As we build a strong Canada, we need to allow for the development of a strong workforce that will help support many of the major projects and critical infrastructure developments we are catalyzing right now.

In the context of the spring economic update specifically, there were a number of measures I was very pleased to see that I think are going to make a significant difference for folks on the ground in Winnipeg, throughout Manitoba and beyond, across the country. Included in those are up to $16,000 over the course of about four years for somebody who is in training to become a skilled worker in the trades. This financial incentive is critical for folks who are trying to balance their education with the financial responsibilities they have in their life. This type of incentive is going to ensure that we retain people throughout that educational process.

In addition to that, one of the things we see in this particular part of the spring economic update statement regarding the skilled trades are supports for small and medium-sized businesses to allow for apprentices to have opportunities. I was very proud a number of years ago to be the principal of the Maples Met high school. One of the things that was amazing about this school was that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays the kids would be in class doing project-based learning, but on Tuesdays and Thursdays they would go out into the community to do internships. Often these internships would take place with the leaders of small and medium-sized businesses, who would help them understand what the pathway was toward a profession in the trades.

We are going to be creating an agency government-wide that is going to help facilitate that process, whereby business owners, educational institutions and people who are wanting to join a profession are going to be able to work collaboratively to advance those opportunities. Inclusive as well of the opportunity in trades is a $5,000 incentive upon the completion of a Red Seal certification.

One thing I would like us to move on is some conversations between the federal government and provincial governments in order to make sure we are aligned on helping to create that opportunity for young people. It is often as early as grades 8, 9 and 10 that people know they want to begin to explore the spaces around the skilled trades, and the more closely we can be aligned across the country to create those pathways, the stronger I believe we are going to be.

I also want to talk about the importance of stability in building a strong community. In my hometown of Winnipeg, there is a significant crisis ongoing in relation to mental health, addiction and homelessness. We have announced a continuation of a $125-million investment in unsheltered homelessness and encampment initiatives. Just last week in my office here in Ottawa, I sat down with some executives from the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Manitoba chapter, who talked to me about how critically important the investments in this fund have been to providing, particularly, wraparound services.

When we talk about dealing with the mental health and addictions crisis and about people who are currently unsheltered or living on the streets, we have to focus not just on creating housing but also on creating stable housing that is supported by a variety of different resources, whether that be addiction treatment options, social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists, or peers who are going through similar situations who can build strong bonds within the community to help people through these very difficult aspects of their journey.

The $125 million is a significant investment, but in addition to that, it builds on top of the $5-billion health infrastructure announcement we made in the last budget. I am working very closely with my colleagues on the ground in Winnipeg and other stakeholders to make sure these funds go towards building the types of wraparound services that will comprehensively and collaboratively create the type of supports people in Winnipeg need right now.

I started this speech by talking about the importance of connection between people and places. Connection to our natural environment is critical, and the last thing I will say is that I am very proud to have seen reflected in the spring economic update the insights, feedback and guidance that the people I represent in Winnipeg South Centre had given me, inclusive of input on the environment. It is investments like the $75 million in the Seal River Watershed in Northern Manitoba that speak very much to that.

[Dane Lloyd, Conservative, Parkland, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague will agree that the crime rates in this country are far too high, and that is why I think Canadians were very hopeful when the government announced that it would be hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers.

However, we have recently learned that of the 1,000 RCMP officers the government claimed it was hiring, only 750 of them are actually going to be frontline officers; 250 of them are going to be civilian support employees. It gets better. The government, under its early retirement incentive, laid off over 300 civilian employees from the RCMP. The government says it is hiring 250 more employees, but it has let go 300 employees and is bringing in only 750 frontline officers.

This is an investment illusion under the government. Why is it failing to protect our streets, by underinvesting in police?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I met with police officers from the Winnipeg police union a couple of days ago in Ottawa. I can say that their view was very different, as was that of police chiefs from across the country. For example, Bill C-14, which would bring in tougher penalties for repeat offenders, particularly those who are using weapons and violence in the crimes they are committing, is being welcomed across the board in this country.

In addition to that, I want to go back to a component of my speech that talked about the importance of investing in supports for mental health and addictions, and homelessness. Lots of crime is born out of poverty and out of very difficult conditions that people find themselves in, so by making investments in people through social services, we help to reduce crime rates in this country.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, currently, the government has set the increase in health transfers at 5%, which is clearly insufficient because system costs are rising, due to population aging, at a rate closer to 6%. The government has not locked in the increase in health transfers, which means that, by 2027-28, it could drop to 2% or 3%, even though the health care systems in Quebec and other provinces are already struggling.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we are allocating nearly $220 million for infrastructure and health care in Manitoba. What does that mean for the people of Winnipeg and Manitoba? It means that we can continue to provide the necessary services. As I just mentioned in my response to the previous question, there is a crisis happening right now on the streets of Winnipeg. These investments will make a big difference.

I cannot speak to what is happening in Quebec specifically, but I can say that, in Manitoba, these investments are making a big difference for the people of my province.

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

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague mentioned that he had visited schools and spoke about the importance of supporting our youth.

I would like him to say a few words about our historic investment in sport and its impact on our young people. Why is it important to support sport, including for the younger generation?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, these are exceptionally significant investments. It is not just important for physical and mental health. It is something we need for building strong communities. Participation in sport improves the lives of parents and children alike, across all communities.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out some financial indicators we have right now, particularly as they pertain to small business. The CFIB has said that for six quarters in a row, we have had more small businesses closing down than are starting up. It has described us as being in an “entrepreneurial drought”. About 55% of entrepreneurs are saying they do not suggesting opening a business.

How do the Liberals square that with their economic update?

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, how we square that is by giving $10,000 to small and medium-sized businesses to help attract entrepreneurs and apprentices who are going to create and build this country. That is how we do that.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time.

It is always an honour to rise in the House, and I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, on the spring economic update. Unfortunately, the legislation confirms what Canadians already feel in their daily lives: that after years of costly Liberal fiscal policy, life is becoming more expensive, less predictable and harder to manage.

Before I dive into the details, I would like to set the stage by looking at how the nation is actually receiving this update. If we want to know how far the Liberal rhetoric is from the Canadian reality, we only have to look at the headlines from The Globe and Mail and the National Post this week: “Canada Strong is still Canada deep in debt”, the Liberals’ “upside-down [fiscal] world”, and “[Canada’s] 'New Government' has no interest in arresting our economic decline”.

To summarize the content of these headlines, if someone has been wondering what meaning to attach to that irritating phrase the Liberals are so fond of, “Canada’s new government”, they should wonder no longer, as the spring economic update makes abundantly clear that it means nothing. There is no use in being disappointed; we should all be managing our own expectations. The new government is no more interested in arresting our economic decline than the old one was.

It is clear the Liberals have no intention of changing their high-spending, high-taxing ways. Economists have sounded the alarm. Without aggressive measures to boost productivity, our country will continue to slide, yet in the bill, we see no commitment to deep deregulation, no effort at broad tax reform and no plan for growth. This is not progress. This is just more of the same, wrapped in a new coat of paint.

As always, I want to speak specifically about how this impacts the wonderful people of Long Range Mountains. When they look at this, they do not see a plan for growth. They see a document written for a boardroom full of Liberal elites. It bears no resemblance to the reality of life in Newfoundland and Labrador. At a time when hard-working Canadians are looking for relief, this offers something very different. It offers a costly credit card approach that doubles down on spending, increases the deficit and risks driving inflation even higher.

The Liberal Prime Minister has now doubled the deficit left by his predecessor, from $31 billion to $65 billion, and the consequences of that decision will be borne not by the government but by hard-working Canadians. The Liberals certainly do not consider the unique challenges that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador face, especially the challenges of the island portion of our province, where most of our fresh produce and everyday essentials must be shipped in. Building materials have to be brought across on the ferry. In Long Range Mountains, fuel is not a luxury but a lifeline. We do not have subways; we have vast highways with no cellphone service and unpredictable coastal weather conditions. The bill doubles down on fuel taxes that act as a geographic penalty on rural, remote and coastal Canadians.

Across the country, families are already stretched thin. The rising cost of food, housing and basic necessities is forcing difficult choices at kitchen tables across the country. Seniors are being squeezed by fixed incomes that no longer go as far as they once did. Young Canadians are postponing major life decisions because the cost of home ownership feels out of reach. They are losing hope in their future in this country.

When a father in Deer Lake fills up his truck to go to work, he is paying a premium for the Liberal government’s ideology. When a senior in Burgeo looks at the cost of home heating fuel, she is being squeezed by a Liberal plan that makes her life harder every single day. In that context, one would expect the legislation to show restraint and focus on affordability, but instead, it introduces $37 billion in new Liberal spending, on top of tens of billions already committed. It proposes the creation of a sovereign wealth fund that has no wealth behind it, relying instead on borrowed money. It would allocate billions more to international climate finance, millions for conferences and billions in subsidies that would do little to address the immediate pressures facing hard-working Canadians.

This is not a targeted plan to help families. It is an expansion of government at a time when Canadians need the exact opposite.

Liberals brag about $37 billion in spending, yet if we talk to any small business owner or walk into any grocery store and ask how they are managing to navigate in this environment, they do not want to hear about billions of dollars for international climate conferences. They want to know when prices are going to start to go down so they can manage to drive their kids to the activities they love and, at the same time, keep food on their tables. Seniors still living in their homes on a fixed income want to know when their money will once again be enough to live off.

Entrepreneurs want to have confidence that they can grow their business and hire more staff instead of constantly facing more costs that create uncertainty and stress. They want to innovate and work on their business instead of constantly wondering how they are going to make payroll. They want to continue to contribute to their communities instead of having to cut back because of constantly higher costs.

At a time when we should be focused on bringing costs down for hard-working Canadians, the bill proposes a sovereign wealth fund with no actual wealth behind it, only borrowed money. Meanwhile, the cost of servicing the national debt continues to climb. This year alone, debt interest payments will reach $59 billion, which is more than the federal government transfers to provinces for health care and more than it collects in GST revenue. This translates to roughly $3,400 per Canadian family just to cover the cost of Liberal borrowing. This is money that could otherwise be invested in Canadians' priorities, but instead it is consumed by the growing weight of Liberal debt.

Even more concerning is that the government's own projections show slow economic growth and rising inflation. In other words, despite unprecedented levels of Liberal spending, the fundamentals of the economy are weakening. Canada now faces some of the most challenging economic indicators in the G7, including high household debt, unaffordable housing, weak productivity and declining investment. These are not short-term fluctuations. They reflect deeper structural issues that this bill fails to address.

We hear a lot about team Canada, but there is a massive gap between Liberal rhetoric and the reality being felt by hard-working Canadians. We have young people in the trades who want to build their lives at home. We have resource potential that could make us a global energy superpower, but we are held back by a Liberal wall of regulatory bottlenecks. Whether it is the punishing industrial carbon price or red tape preventing us from developing our own resources, the Liberal government is standing in the way of Newfoundland and Labrador's economic prosperity.

Conservatives—

[The Acting Speaker, Pat Kelly]

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from May 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, to conclude my earlier speech on Bill C-30, the Liberals brag about $37 billion in spending, but they should walk into any grocery store in Long Range Mountains and ask families how they are managing. They do not want to hear about billions for international conferences. They want to know how they can afford to drive their kids to hockey or keep food on the table. Seniors on fixed incomes are falling behind. Entrepreneurs are wondering how to make payroll instead of how to grow.

At a time when we should be bringing costs down, this bill proposes a sovereign wealth fund with no wealth behind it, only borrowed money. The cost of servicing the Liberal debt will reach $59 billion this year. That is more than the federal government transfers for health care, and it costs every Canadian family $3,400 just to cover the interest. Despite this unprecedented spending, our economic fundamentals are weakening. We face some of the worst indicators in the G7: high debt, unaffordable housing and weak productivity.

Newfoundland and Labrador has the resource potential to be a global energy superpower, but we have been held back by a Liberal wall of regulatory bottlenecks and a punishing industrial carbon price.

Conservatives believe Canada can do better. We believe in fiscal responsibility, lower taxes and unlocking our natural resources so that Canadians benefit from our country's wealth. We have enormous resource potential, but we need the government to get out of the way so Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can do what we have always done: work hard and provide for our families.

Canadians are not asking for more Liberal empty announcements. They are asking for a government that understands the pressures they face and their realities. The people of Long Range Mountains are resilient. We have survived the hardest winters and the toughest seas, but we should not have to survive the Liberal government's costly credit card economic policies.

Bill C-30 fails to provide relief or a sustainable path forward. Therefore, I cannot support this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing that the Conservative Party of Canada does not recognize fantastic programs that have been a part of Canadian society for many years. I am talking about the Red Seal program. Under the Red Seal program, this government and this Prime Minister have made a commitment that we are going to see anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new skilled professional Red Seal recipients. This is good news, in particular for young people.

On the one hand, the Conservative Party says that we need to do things for young people. When we do things for young people, the Conservative Party consistently votes against it. Does the Conservative Party of today, the far-right Conservative, support the Red Seal program?

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way consistently stands up in this House and is always the person to ask questions of members opposite.

However, if we do not have an economy that has opportunities for our young people, we can train them all we want but at the end of the day there is no job for them to go to. In Newfoundland and Labrador, we have enormous resource potential, but we have an out-migration problem because we have not developed our natural resources sector to be able to retain our people in our communities. We need to talk about how we can unleash our untapped potential in order to provide some opportunities for our young people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my Liberal colleague in terms of the $6-billion plan to recruit and train 100,000 new Red Seal workers.

However, the Liberal government cut international student study permits by more than 40% and restricted postgraduate work permits without consulting higher-learning institutions that rely on those students. The consequences have been hard-hitting on Vancouver Island. Nearly 30 programs have been cut between North Island College and Vancouver Island University, including a dental assistant program that has trained workers for 50 years.

The Prime Minister says that Canada must deliver major nation-building projects. How will the government build the workforce Canada needs while its policies shut down the very important programs that are needed to train those workers, especially in rural Canada, in places like Port Alberni?

Maybe my colleague can speak about how that impact is hurting her riding and people who want to study and participate in the workforce in her community.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, in addition to what the hon. member mentioned in his comments, the Liberals also cut out private training colleges from Canada student grant applications. In Newfoundland and Labrador, there is a full ecosystem of universities and colleges that meet the demands of the private sector for the workforce. I completely understand this frustration and concern. There is always a top-down approach that does not translate well, especially in rural Canada, and these are the ultimate implications for communities as a result.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was in the House for the first part of my hon. colleague's excellent speech and was delighted to be here today for the rest of it. Our ridings have a lot in common, even though they are on opposite sides of the country. They are resource-based. They are filled with families, and they are struggling right now, yet the members across the way continue to stand up and tell us that Canadians have never had it so good and that the economy is all sunshine and rainbows.

I am wondering if the member can talk a bit about what it feels like on the ground under current circumstances in her communities.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and friend's excellent explanation of exactly the same thing that I hear time and again whenever I am in my riding. I go to the grocery store and I see how people are struggling. I have constituents consistently reaching out and talking to me about impossible decisions that they have to make between eating and heating their homes, and seniors who cannot afford their medication. In light of the fact that we hear, day in and day out, this constant “good news” and “great announcements”, at the end of the day, on the ground in the communities, people are struggling. This is what we are trying to address, as responsible members of Parliament, especially as it relates to rural and coastal communities across this country.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about the spring economic update, or as I call it, the spring deficit update. The Liberals, on their introduction of the bill, put out a good 250-page program called “Canada Strong for All.” I think it should be “Canada Deficits for All.” It reminds me of a famous Internet meme from Toy Story of Woody and Buzz Lightyear, where Buzz is pointing out saying, “as far as the eye can see.” That is what this economic update is. It is deficits as far as the eye can see.

Do members remember, not too long ago, in the Trudeau days, when Trudeau said that balanced budgets from the Liberal government was a commitment set in stone? He said it was “very” cast in stone. Now, 75% of the current Liberal bench, and about half the cabinet, is made up of people who were here under the Trudeau government, yet somehow this cast-in-stone commitment to balance the budget has disappeared.

Instead of a balanced budget, what do we get? We get deficits as far as the eye can see. It was $67 billion last year, which is well up from the worst of the Trudeau days; $65 billion this year; $63 billion next year; $58 billion in 2028; a $56-billion deficit in 2029; and $53 billion in 2030. That is $362 billion of added debt in just over six years.

Do members remember the government's saying it was going to spend less and invest more? Over the same period, this spending less is going to get us $406 billion in interest on the Liberal debt. There is money for bankers, with $406 billion for banker friends of the Prime Minister, not for Canadians, not for more doctors, not for more nurses, not for more schools or hospitals, not for lower taxes, heaven forbid, and not for defence or more infrastructure. That is $406 billion over a six-year period for the Liberal debt.

Do members remember, which was repeated ad nauseam by the government, by the ministers, that they were going to cut spending? Again, they said that they were going to spend less so they could invest more.

The President of the Treasury Board was at the operations committee yesterday, the mighty OGGO. I have to mention that. He stated that there was $60 billion less in spending, but what does the spring deficit update actually bring us? It brings more spending and program spending that actually outpaces the rate of inflation over the next six years. Somehow spend less equals more program spending. This is from the Liberals' own documents.

What about the public service? The government says it is going to cut 35,000 jobs, yet the Parliamentary Budget Officer has put out a report noting that spending on the public service is actually increasing 6%; from $71 billion, it is going up to $76 billion. In committee, we asked about this, and the Treasury Board told us that it is not actually reducing public servants or spending but just re-profiling, shifting things around.

What does all this extra spending get us? For 10 years, the government has been excusing its deficits by saying that spending is needed because it is going to add growth, is going to do this and is going to do that. What did we get? It is not a lot of growth, with a 1.7% average growth over the next six years. An added deficit of $362 billion equals 1.7% growth.

What is interesting is that the Bank of Canada put out its monetary policy report at about the same time that the spring deficit update came out from the government, and the Bank of Canada's number for growth is 16% lower in 2027 than what the government is saying, with a 10% lower prediction in GDP growth the following year.

How is it that the Bank of Canada has different numbers than the government does? We actually asked and were told that the Bank of Canada is using proper numbers. Who has the real numbers? How much higher is the deficit going to be if we are to believe the Bank of Canada over the government? It is about an extra $2 billion to $3 billion of deficit added per year.

That is certainly not adding to any productivity or growth. According to the Bank of Canada report on the contributions to real GDP growth over the coming years, in 2026, the year we are in now, the vast majority of growth in our GDP is government spending. Almost as much growth is from consumption. It is not from added exports, and it is not from growth in productivity. I think GDP growth is 1.2% this year, and almost all of it is government spending.

In 2027, 44% of the GDP growth that we are going to see in this country, according to the Bank of Canada, will not be from pipelines, from building more cars, from more industry or from more exports. It will be from government spending. In 2028, 27% of the projected growth, according to the Bank of Canada, is going to be government spending.

What should we do to increase growth? It is simple: Unleash our oil and gas industry. We can start by repealing Bill C-48, which bans tankers off British Columbia's north coast and stops Alberta oil from being exported. We could get rid of Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill. We could end the destructive oil production cap that the government still has not repealed. We could actually get to building pipelines and increasing revenue and wealth for this country.

We saw a note from a very famous economist, Ms. Exner-Pirot. She stated that just in the two months of the war in Iran and the issues with the Strait of Hormuz, if we had built the northern gateway pipeline, we would be looking at an extra $3 billion in revenue for this country, just from the added oil from the last two months. The government is running a massive deficit. Instead, we could actually be making more.

I am going to talk about northern gateway and the lost revenue caused by the government when it cancelled the project. The government has still not set up the regulatory regime to allow a pipeline to the coast. Total government revenue between 2019 and 2048, if we had built northern gateway, would be $131.5 billion: $72 billion for the federal government and about $59 billion for the provincial governments. On an annual basis, in revenue by region, provinces will have lost out on $2.1 billion per year because the Liberal government cancelled the northern gateway project, with $1.7 billion lost for the federal government.

With respect to jobs, we just heard the member for Winnipeg North go on and on about, in the spring deficit update, money for trades. We do not have a lot of trades jobs available in Canada right now. It is wonderful that there is finally, after 10 years, recognition by the Liberal government that the people who build things have value, but where are the jobs going to be for them? The jobs could have been in helping build northern gateway. For that period, 773,000 jobs, on an FTE basis, are lost because the government threw up barriers and cancelled northern gateway.

The government will say that we need to have a carbon tax in order to sell our oil. We saw the president of Cenovus today state quite bluntly that we would be the only country in the world handicapping our oil and gas industry in such a way. He states that under Liberal policies, the government is producing high-paying jobs in Saudi Arabia, Russia and America instead of here in Canada. Canada's oil production is the most ethical, and we have an industry that is providing more jobs for indigenous people and more wealth than any other industry in Canada, but the government is trying to wreck it.

The government needs to get out of the way and recognize that the oil and gas industry has produced wealth for this country and for the world. It needs to get out of the way to allow us to build, and it needs to stop its inflationary practices and stop destroying this country with its deficit spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have adopted this policy of “just get out of the way”, and it is unfortunate. The government has been able to achieve a great deal over the last year.

Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. This new Prime Minister made a commitment to build Canada strong by looking at things such as major projects, which means working with premiers and others. In fact, in Alberta, the member's home province, there is a memorandum of understanding that is going to see more natural resources getting to the west coast. There are all sorts of opportunities in which the government is a major player. The Calgary office has been set up.

I wonder if the member could give his thoughts on whether there is anyone within the Conservative Party who supports the major projects—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Edmonton West.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North overlooks the fact that this government has not repealed Bill C-48, which ensures no pipeline will get built to the B.C. coast. He overlooks that this government has still not repealed Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill. This government has still not repealed the oil and gas production cap. Who is going to invest in this country when we cannot get our oil to market, and when the government is punishing the oil and gas industries with a carbon tax that does not apply to similar industries in other countries?

The Major Projects Office is like everything else the Liberals offer: It is an illusion.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a somewhat technical question.

The bill impacts several laws, including the Bank Act. If I understand correctly, the government is making it easier for foreign entities to take control of Canadian banks. The government was elected on a promise to protect the public from President Trump, yet it now appears to be facilitating the takeover of Canadian banks by various entities, particularly American ones.

Could this be because Brookfield is now registered in the United States so that it can continue to use tax havens, or is this really just kowtowing to the American president?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has brought up a great point. He has actually brought up two great points.

When the same old, corrupt, tired Liberal government was elected, the Liberals stated they would no longer do omnibus bills, and that is what this is. I think there are 11 different pieces of legislation, including the act the member mentioned.

On the direct question about helping foreign entities come in and take over our banking system, I honestly wonder what he expects from the Prime Minister when one of his last acts in the private sector was moving his company out of Canada into the States, and then denying he actually did it.

The Prime Minister is not dedicated to our country. I think he is dedicated to his business interests.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one thing the member missed in his speech that I think needs to be brought here very clearly, and I know the member will be able to address this, is the extra $3 billion put forward by this government, in a horrendously overstretched deficit, for international climate initiatives around the world.

Does the member really think that Canadians can afford an extra $3 billion, and what does this signal as far as the government's commitment to actually get things done properly with Canadian taxpayers' money?

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for Calgary Centre for his continued advocacy for Alberta's oil and gas industry.

It is ridiculous. This government continues its virtue-signalling tour around the world, spending Canadian money on wasteful projects, I believe, overseas, when we have 2.2 million people every month at food banks in Canada. We have seniors and we have parents who cannot feed their children.

This government should be focused on growing our wealth, not spending our wealth abroad so the Liberals can have photo ops.

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

Mr. Speaker, we frequently hear said in this place that the previous government under Stephen Harper was ready to move ahead with northern gateway and that it was the Liberals who struck it down. However, I am certain many people forgot, but I did not forget, that the Conservative platform in 2011 was specifically against exporting bitumen to Asia. Specifically, Stephen Harper's platform said that we should not ship Canadian fossil fuels to refineries in countries that have weaker environmental standards than we did. The Conservatives were explicitly against pipelines across British Columbia to export to Asia. As for northern gateway, it was struck down by the Federal Court of Appeal, and due to actions by the previous government, not the Liberals.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course, I disagree with the member from the Green Party. We probably disagree on everything. I think she needs to leave the past behind and, like Marty McFly, go back to the future and understand that Canada is in a different spot right now.

We need to get the pipelines built. We need to build in Canada, to serve Canadians.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying I will be sharing my time with the member for University—Rosedale.

We are living through a period of real global uncertainty. Trade tensions are rising. Conflicts around the world are disrupting supply chains and prices are being pushed up by forces that no single country controls. That is the reality Canadians are living with, but Canadians are not asking for analysis. They are asking for relief. They are asking for it in a way they can feel in their daily lives.

In Winnipeg West, people are not focused on global markets. I recently spoke with seniors in Winnipeg West who told me that grocery trips have become like a budget exercise, because they have to make sure that the basics last until the end of the month.

This is what people are dealing with. They are focused on whether their paycheque will last the month. They are focused on what gets bought, what gets delayed and what simply cannot wait. I hear it in grocery stores. I hear it from families and from young people trying to get started. The message is consistent. Things are getting harder, not easier. That is where responsibility matters.

We cannot control global instability. We are responsible for how it is felt here at home. We are responsible for whether support arrives when it is needed. We are responsible for whether opportunity is within reach or out of reach. We are responsible for whether life becomes more manageable or less so. If it does not show up in people's lives, it does not count.

Nowhere is that clearer than in affordability. Families in Winnipeg West are making difficult choices every time they go to the grocery store. They are stretching budgets that are already stretched thin. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit will support approximately 475,000 Manitobans, including over 36,000 people in Winnipeg West. For a family of four, up to $1,890 this year is not symbolic; it is groceries on the table, it is bills paid and it is breathing room where there was none. With a top-up arriving as early as June 5, that support arrives when pressure is being felt, not after it has passed. Affordability support only works if it is timely.

We are also making it easier for Canadians with disabilities to access the support they are entitled to. By streamlining the disability tax credit application process, expanding who can certify eligibility and reducing barriers for those with long-lasting medical conditions, more Canadians will be able to access the disability tax credit and the supports connected to it, including the Canada disability benefit. Affordability is not one-size-fits-all and support has to reach the people who need it most.

Gasoline is another point of concern. In Winnipeg West, people depend on their vehicles for work, school and daily life. When gasoline prices rise, there is no buffer. The impact is immediate. That is why reducing prices by about 10¢ per litre until Labour Day matters. It is not the full answer, by any means, but it is real relief every time someone fills their tank.

Right now, stability matters. Housing pressure is building, rents are rising, vacancy is tightening and ownership is becoming harder to reach.

This update responds with scale: more than $7 billion to accelerate rental housing and another $1.7 billion to remove barriers slowing construction. This means stalled projects move forward, more housing gets built in Winnipeg and more people get options instead of uncertainty. Without new supply, affordability does not stabilize; it erodes. However, housing does not get built on policy. It gets built by people.

We are also building for the long term.

In Manitoba, the talent is there. The barrier is access. That is why a $400 weekly apprenticeship benefit matters, along with supports for employers to take on apprentices. It removes the financial gap that keeps people out of the trades. That means more apprentices on job sites across Winnipeg, more projects completed and more stable, well-paying careers that stay in our communities. That is because opportunity only matters if people can actually take it.

The Canada Strong fund is about keeping investment in Canada: building here, hiring here and growing here. Growth only matters if Canadians feel it. In Winnipeg, we can already see how that works. At 17 Wing, and across our aerospace sector, defence is not abstract. It is work, skills and opportunity. Canada has now reached the 2% NATO target, strengthening both our alliances and our economy. Through the defence industrial strategy, more than 125,000 jobs will be supported across the country, and Winnipeg is part of that. That means aerospace work today, and opportunity for the next generation.

Strong communities also require safety. In Winnipeg West, people are concerned about fraud, scams and financial crime targeting vulnerable residents. This update includes $75 million for the Canada community security program, along with stronger action against fraud. That means better protection, and it means consequences for those who target people's savings and security. When people do not feel safe, nothing else works the way it should.

Strong communities are built through connection, through recreation, through sport and through shared spaces. With $755 million in sport funding, more young people in Winnipeg West will have access to programs that build confidence, discipline and belonging. For many families, that is not secondary; it is foundational. Communities are not built on announcements. They are built one person, one family and one neighbourhood at a time.

All of this is being done while maintaining fiscal discipline. We are reducing spending by $60 billion over five years and lowering the deficit. Canadians expect support in difficult times, but they also expect responsibility. We are expected to deliver both.

The people in Winnipeg West understand that the world is uncertain. They are not asking us to control it. They are asking us to respond to it, to make life more affordable, to make opportunity more accessible, to make communities safer and stronger, and to ensure that what is decided in this place is felt in their daily lives. In Winnipeg West, if it is not felt, it does not count.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Winnipeg West; we share the “west” part of our ridings.

I appreciate the member's speech and I honestly believe that he means well, he cares for people and he is not out here pushing the government's slogans. One of the issues he brought up was the grocery rebate. The way it is formulated, if we have a husband and wife, a mother and father, or two adults with up to four kids earning pennies above minimum wage in Manitoba, they would be earning too much and would not receive the grocery rebate. The way the government has it set up pushes most of the rebate into the hands of single earners, single families without children.

Can my colleague comment on that being the government's priority, not helping low-income families, which is the way the program is set up?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his kind words. This benefit is meant to give maximum relief to the lowest-income Canadians, and that is what it does. It is not a one-size-fits-all answer, but it is targeted toward the lowest-income Canadians.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government likes to brag a lot about the economic update, saying from the get-go that it addresses the cost-of-living issue and that it will solve the current problem of inflation. However, there is not much in this economic statement that actually helps people, particularly those most affected by inflation, such as people on fixed incomes, like seniors. Nothing was announced for them. That was something that the Bloc Québécois had asked for. There is an unfairness among seniors. This government created two classes of seniors and it is still unable to solve this problem, even though it has economic consequences.

Why did my colleague and his government not use this economic update to ensure that all seniors receive the same pension amoun, starting at age 65?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, as we have said, we are bringing relief to the lowest-income Canadians. This includes seniors.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that particular note, I have two quick points. I wonder if I could get the member to provide his thoughts on the national food program that was instituted and made permanent by our government. It is going to be there well into the future. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on that.

Within the budget we talk a lot about building capital infrastructure. There is a hospital designation. I know that the member has a passion for our health care system. For me, personally, I would love to see an emergency room re-established at the Seven Oaks General Hospital. I have to give that plug. I am hoping that the province will see the value of that.

I am wondering if the member would like to highlight anything, whether it is the Grace Hospital or, in particular, the national school food program.

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I spent eight years working in Seven Oaks hospital. That particular place is near and dear to my heart. I thought that the provincial government's closing its emergency room was a terrible mistake.

However, this spring update is in addition to the many initiatives over the last 10 years that have helped lower-income Canadians, such as the Canada child benefit and the school nutrition program, which is feeding 400,000 children across the country. We are simply adding to the supports for lower-income Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have known my colleague for a long time. I have a lot of respect for him.

The spring economic update states that the government is “assessing opportunities to unlock the...value of airports in support of investments in Canada's long-term growth, including through alternative models of ownership.” The Liberal government is looking at privatizing airports. This is not something that even Conservatives would do.

Rod Sims, the former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, highlighted that “the travelling public loses big time, over time” when they tried this experiment.

Will my colleague stand in the House and tell the Canadian public that they will not privatize Canada's airports?

[Doug Eyolfson, Liberal, Winnipeg West, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the statement read by the hon. member, for whom I have tremendous respect, is simply an exploration of options and nothing more.

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, across the country today, the most important conversations about health are not happening in doctors' offices. They are happening at kitchen tables, in workplaces and between neighbours on the sidewalk. They are conversations about making rent, about the cost of groceries, about finding work and about whether everything is going to be okay this week, this month or in this lifetime. These are, fundamentally, conversations about health. We often think about those conversations as conversations about the economy, as if those two things were not, in fact, one and the same.

I have spent 20 years as a family doctor in my riding. I have had very important conversations with my patients in my examination room, yet I am certain that the most important conversation about my patients' health, my constituents' health and the health of every single Canadian is not any conversation I have had before. It is the one that we are having today and that we will be having tomorrow. It is one that will be ongoing in the House. It is the one that I came here to be a part of.

I rise today as the new member of Parliament for University—Rosedale on the day that the House debates the spring economic update. I rise with my eyes wide open to the work that we have before us and the responsibility that we have all been given. I also take my seat with a clear sense of who has sat in the House before me.

Physicians have been elected to our Parliament since well before Confederation. The very first physician elected to Parliament kept his medical bag under his seat in the House.

I left my medical bag in Toronto, but my impulse to support the health of Canadians is the same as if I had brought it with me. I have joined this team because the health of the country is a bigger challenge than any one doctor can try to fix. The bigger medicine is right here, and I am filled with gratitude for the opportunity to participate in that work.

I thank the voters of University—Rosedale. They have entrusted me to be their voice, and I fully intend to continue to earn that trust every single day.

I thank my partner and my daughter for their inspiration, encouragement and patience. There are also my parents. My mom is a francophone immigrant from Egypt who landed in Montreal, and my dad is an anglophone boy born into a Hamilton family that stretches back many generations. I thank them teaching me that there is no one way to be Canadian. Actually, I thank them for teaching me that the fact that there is no one way to be Canadian is precisely the thing that makes our country great.

University—Rosedale is located in the heart of downtown Toronto. While I would never claim that it is the centre of the universe, in a very real sense, it reflects much of this country in 14 square kilometres. Yes, it is an urban riding in our biggest city, but 40% of my neighbours were born in another country. Many more come from another province. We have the largest university campus in Canada. We have one of the densest concentrations of hospitals on the continent.

Our community is filled with the energy of Kensington Market, the Annex, Koreatown, Chinatown, Trinity-Bellwoods, Yorkville, Little Italy, Rosedale and so many more distinct neighbourhoods. We have a vibrant urban indigenous community doing incredible work at places like the Native Canadian Centre at 16 Spadina Road. That street name, I would like to mention, is an anglicization of the Anishinabe word ishspadina.

University—Rosedale is a riding that contains Canada's past, its present and its future.

The document before the House is the spring economic update. Economic health is health, period. Of course, part of a country's health is determined by what happens inside hospitals and doctors' offices, but more is determined elsewhere, by whether we can access an education, whether our child has eaten breakfast, whether the air we breathe is clean, whether the streets we walk are safe, whether there is a job in our future and whether there is a future in our job. Therefore, housing policy is health policy. The Canada child benefit is health policy. Access to food is health policy. Apprenticeship training, community safety, innovation and investments in infrastructure are all health policies.

This is what I have learned in my 20 years treating Canadians: The best medicine, the one that does the most good for most people, is not medicine at all. It is a stable address; a meal at school every day; a good job with a good salary; and the social programs that this country has built and must have the courage to protect.

That is what 24,000 of my constituents using the Canadian dental care plan are asking for. That is what 50,000 of them benefiting from our GST credit are asking for. That is what every person under 35 in my riding who rents instead of owns, because for them the dream of home ownership is exactly that, just a dream, is asking for.

The Prime Minister said that this government's goal is to build Canada strong. A stronger Canada is a healthier Canada. That is what I see in the spring economic update: the expansion of the national school food program, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, GST relief for first-time homebuyers and investments in community safety. Each of these measures is a brick. Together, we will build a strong wall that will protect the promise of a strong and healthy Canada.

Speaking of building with bricks, I want to spend a moment on affordable housing, because it is among the most powerful upstream health interventions any government can make. Since their peak, home prices in this country are down 20%. Rents are down 9%.

Those numbers are not abstractions in University—Rosedale. They represent a multi-generational family that gets to keep its duplex in Little Portugal, a graduate student who can afford their first apartment in the Annex or a new Canadian who does not have to leave the downtown core to raise their children. Still, there is much more work to be done. We are just getting started.

The late Senator Hugh Segal, one of the most thoughtful Canadians of his generation, used to speak of what he called the two essential freedoms: “freedom from fear and freedom from want.” He believed that any country worth its name owed both of them to its people. He was right.

That is what the word “progressive” means to me. It is a commitment to equitable and decent public services and a growing and fair economy. It is values and value in the same breath, at the same time, every single time.

This spring economic update is both a “freedom from fear” and a “freedom from want” document. It speaks to diversifying our trade partners and building the supply chains we will need when the next external shock arrives, and there will be one. As the Prime Minister has said, “we [must] take the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” That is not only economic insurance; it is ensuring the strength and health of a country that intends to be around for a very long time.

The purpose of growing and protecting our economy is not so that it looks good on paper. The purpose of our economy is people, supporting them and creating the conditions for them to achieve their fullest potential. It is taking the world as it is, yes, and also working to move it closer to the world we want it to be. To me, that is what we mean when we speak of a Canada strong for all.

To my new colleagues on every side of the House, I will bring to this work the skills of every good family physician, which I have learned in two decades of medicine and leadership. They are listening and building relationships while holding the unshakable conviction that the purpose of any institution, whether it is a hospital or Parliament, is to show up for real people in the hardest moments of their lives. Members can count me in for that for the spring economic update and all the work ahead.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member has a lengthy history of supporting Bernie Sanders. A quick Google search revealed that he has many photos of press releases from events where she is seen sitting next to Bernie Sanders or supporting and applauding him down in the United States.

What U.S.-style politics and policy from Bernie Sanders is she going to import into Canada?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member opposite and every member of the House.

As we know, this is a party that attracts people from all across the political spectrum and, in fact, from all sides of the aisle. There are lots of good ideas that we can take from all kinds of countries as we consider our options going forward.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the newly elected member and congratulate her on her excellent speech. I believe this is her first speech. Large parts of it were delivered in impeccable French. It is heartwarming to hear that.

I was very moved by my colleague's concern for health care. That is the top priority for people in Quebec. People often speak to me about it. Unfortunately, our health care system is under strain. This is often due to a lack of funding.

One demand the Bloc Québécois has been making of the government for years is to increase funding for the health care system. Health transfers are increasing by about 3% a year, but the costs of the system are rising by 6% a year. We are therefore in the same situation as we were during the Harper years.

Will my hon. colleague put pressure on the government to increase health care funding?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. As I see it, the economic statement we are discussing today is all about health care from start to finish. The investments our government is making in the determinants of health are truly significant. Negotiations between the federal government and the provinces and territories regarding health care will always require a lot of work.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a question asked by my colleague across the aisle regarding relations with the United States.

I would like my colleague to talk about what our country can do to set a good example in terms of health care systems. What kind of example can we set for the United States?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, despite all of our challenges, our health care system in Canada is a great moral victory. The notion that no Canadian should ever be bankrupted by medical costs is a fundamental premise that is held up by all sides of the political spectrum. I believe that is a lesson Canada can continue to teach the world, and one we must continue to heed ourselves in all of the great work ahead.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on her election. She has been a strong proponent of a universal public pharmacare plan. She has long advocated and argued that a national single-payer pharmacare program would actually save money, but now she represents a riding in a province that does not have a pharmacare deal.

Can New Democrats, the people of Ontario and the people of her riding count on her to be a champion, to force her government to get to the table with Ontario and deliver on the promise of a national pharmacare plan so those people in Ontario can actually get access to it?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague across the way as well. Absolutely, I think it will be critically important for the Government of Ontario to sit down with the Government of Canada to talk about the future of pharmacare. There is no universe in which that conversation can happen without both parties at the table.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must start with congratulating the new member for University—Rosedale. I have long admired her advocacy for our public health care system when going down to Washington.

This may be a bit of a tough question. Does she agree with the Canadian Medical Association that the climate crisis is the single biggest public health threat of the 21st century? Can she help us get it back on track, with her government at the moment going slow?

[Danielle Martin, Liberal, University—Rosedale, ON]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is the World Health Organization itself that has deemed climate change to be the number one threat to health all over the world. It is not just a problem in Canada, as the member knows well. Certainly, it is absolutely a priority of this government and must continue to be a priority for all of us to make sure we are taking care of those essential determinants of health, including the climate.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Riding Mountain.

On April 28, the Minister of Finance proudly tabled his economic update. He talked about “Canada Strong”. He repeats that line every week in the House. The 167‑page update includes billions of dollars in spending, $25 billion for a sovereign debt fund, strategies, programs and announcements on top of announcements. In Parliament, the government was talking about ambition.

Meanwhile, on April 28, people in Baie‑Saint‑Paul, Saint‑Hilarion, Beaupré, Boischatel, L'Isle‑aux‑Coudres, Île d'Orléans and in Montmorency—Charlevoix were going about their daily lives. Families were worried about their grocery bills. Young couples were holding off on buying their first home. Seniors were counting down the days until their next pension cheque. Workers were wondering how they were going to be able to pay their mortgage at the end of the month.

These are the two realities that we are facing here in Canada in 2026. In Ottawa, the government talks to us about billions of dollars; in Quebec, however, people talk to us about dollars. I am rising today to make a connection between these two realities. To hear the Liberals talk in the House, it seems like all is well, yet Canadians know the truth, because they live with it daily. They go to the grocery store and see that things are more expensive. They go to the gas station and gas seems a lot more expensive too. When the time comes to pay their rent, mortgage or credit card, they see that something is wrong.

I would like to talk about credit card budgets. The government talks about discipline, caution and responsibility, but let us look at the facts through the eyes of an an impartial third party. Claude Lavoie is not a Conservative. He was director-general of economic studies at Finance Canada. He said this:

It's not that the GDP is doing better. It's more that we took in more revenue [including from gas taxes, because gas is expensive, so it brings in more money] and spent a little less by deferring certain expenses.

In other words, the programs that were announced were not delivered, the money was not spent and people were taxed more. Now, the government is telling us that public finances have been carefully managed and that it has kept its promises. No, the government did not keep its promises at all. Not only did it not spend the money, but it imposed more taxes. It is also important to note that the Liberals are projecting an average deficit of $55 billion over five years. Things are not going well when it comes to taxation.

The Conservatives are calling this a credit card budget. Basically, the government is paying the bills with the national credit card. Then, Canadians are forced to pay their bills with their own personal credit cards. That is why everything costs more. It is because when the Liberals spend without any limit, prices, interest rates and mortgages all go up and families get poorer.

Today, the interest on the debt costs more than all of the health transfers to all the provinces. We were talking about health transfers. The interest on the debt costs more than all of that. Imagine. Every dollar people spend on federal taxes when they make a purchase goes toward paying bankers and bondholders. It does not go toward paying doctors and nurses, let alone supporting patients. Meanwhile, Canadians are skipping meals.

There are parents who work full time. Some even work overtime, like Kevin, who called me this week to talk about his situation. He even shared his story with QUB Radio through tears. That is the reality for hard-working citizens who can no longer make ends meet. It is not that these people are not putting in the resources, the work or the effort. It is that they simply can no longer survive under Liberal rule, which takes everything from them. There are seniors living on $2,000 a month. How is anyone supposed to get by on $2,000 a month? The Prime Minister told us that affordability is the best it has ever been, but people do not live in press releases. They live in the real world.

I would like to discuss something else that was announced: the sovereign debt fund. Despite inflation and the cost of living crisis, the government found a way to borrow $25 billion to create a gimmicky sovereign debt fund. The government talks about Norway and says that it will follow the Norwegians' approach. It cannot be serious. Norway built its sovereign wealth fund by developing its resources and became wealthy by selling these resources. Norway's sovereign wealth fund is worth $3.5 trillion Canadian. It achieved this by developing its resources, not by going into debt and borrowing money.

What is the Canadian government doing? Instead of using surpluses, it is taking on more debt to create the illusion of a sovereign wealth fund when that is not what it actually is. Basically, it is as if our neighbour boasted about opening up a savings account and depositing money into it but failed to mention that he used his credit card for the deposit. Ultimately, it is not a terrible idea, although what is most concerning is that the government refuses to even say how much this fund is going to cost per year.

It is the flagship measure in its economic announcement, its economic update, but it refuses to say what the real annual cost will be. When a government refuses to say how much its key measure will cost, that is not transparency; it is a warning about what is to come. It shows what Canadians are going to experience in the coming years. While the government is asking people to tighten their belts and telling young people to make sacrifices, we are seeing money fly off in every direction. The government is investing at least $90 billion in Alto, a high-speed train project that the Minister of Finance recused himself from, or at least, he was supposed to. After 18 hours of Liberal monologues, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was finally able to call the minister to answer questions.

The government is investing close to $1 billion in the program to confiscate legal, registered guns. The government is going to spend nearly $1 billion to take those guns away, when they are clearly not the problem.

The government spends $20 billion a year on outside consultants. It has hired 100,000 public servants over the past 10 years, and yet it still has to spend more than $20 billion a year on consultants. It has spent $65 billion on bureaucracy, which just keeps expanding. It spent $42 million in just one year on the Major Projects Office, which has not recommended a single project since it was created. Meanwhile, Canadian families are still having to choose between paying for groceries, paying the rent and putting gas in their cars.

That is why the priority really lies elsewhere for the Conservatives. Our priority is to put money back in the pockets of Canadians, not in the pockets of consultants, not in the pockets of well-connected insiders and not in the coffers of poorly managed megaprojects. We want to put money back in the pockets of Canadians.

I mentioned mismanaged projects. One that comes to mind straightaway is Cúram. Cúram is the latest chapter in an ongoing saga. In fact, we have not talked about it enough, and it needs to be discussed. It was in the budget. It is a computer system that was supposed to modernize pension payments, but what actually happened was that tens of thousands of seniors did not receive their cheques. These are people who worked all their lives, paid their taxes and trusted the government. What did the government do? In its economic update, with the trust of Canadians, it threw another $473 million at this fiasco. The total cost of creating this software was estimated at $1.75 billion, yet it has apparently surpassed $7 billion. That is what we are learning, because we are finding out more every day. The cost increased by 277%, for a cost overrun of $5.25 billion. That is what the Liberals' idea of sound and effective management of public finances.

It gets even worse. It might seem like this must be the end, but it is not, because there was also an internal memo forbidding public servants from telling seniors who were not receiving their cheques that the problem was caused by the new software. Two days after the economic update was released and the additional $473 million thrown at this fiasco was discovered, the government used its majority to block the opposition's requests for parliamentary documents.

Every day when a sitting of the House of Commons opens, the Speaker stands up and says, “Let the doors be opened”. Basically, the Speaker is telling the citizens to enter the people's House. However, when opposition parties ask questions, those doors close. That is not transparency. That is certainly not accountability.

I would, however, like to mention one good thing about the economic update, and that is sport. When something good is being done, we should be able to acknowledge it. The investments in amateur sport and sports federations are excellent news. It is too bad that we cannot vote on just one measure, because everyone agrees with that one. That is not a Conservative or Liberal point of view, but a Canadian point of view. The investments in sport and physical activity are good investments. That said, this measure is aimed primarily at the young people, families and volunteers who spend their evenings at rinks and fields. I look forward to seeing how direct support will be delivered to our teams on the ground. People can trust me because I am able to point out what is being done right. I am not just being partisan when I make a judgment and say that bad things are happening.

Our role is not just to criticize or oppose; it is also to put forward proposals. Conservatives believe that a government should live by the same rules as Canadian families. When money is tight, choices have to be made. The government should cut waste, reduce unnecessary spending and respect workers' money, because every dollar spent comes out of taxpayers' pockets, and that needs to be respected.

I will conclude on that note. The government needs to cut spending on consultants, trim the bureaucracy, put an end to mismanaged projects, cut waste and stop interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The government also needs to excel in the few areas where the Canadian federation requires its involvement, namely borders, the armed forces, the justice system, a strong dollar and strong interprovincial trade.

This is what we should be focusing on to ensure that our constituents live in a prosperous country and feel that that is their reality.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his very interesting speech.

I will come back to what he said at the beginning about the deficit, which is lower than expected because growth was higher than expected, given that government spending was deferred. There is also another factor. The disaster mitigation and adaptation fund was used less than anticipated. If there had been more floods or fires, we would have had the expected deficit.

I want to raise another point that my colleague mentioned later in his speech: the Canada Strong fund. That is $25 billion over three years. It does not appear on the balance sheet. In accounting terms, it is off-budget because it is asset-backed. However, as the member said, it still adds $25 billion to the government's debt, even if it does not appear in the deficit.

Is that a good idea?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is very odd. In 2024, England set up a fund exactly like that. It was a fund directly financed with debt. The British Parliament refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because that is not what it was. The term does exist, and it applies in some countries, such as Norway. However, the concept we are discussing is not a real sovereign wealth fund.

Oddly enough, our current Prime Minister was a consultant. He was there to help the British Parliament put that in place. He knows that this is not a sovereign wealth fund. He is using the term, but not the concept.

In my opinion, that is a mistake.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is just wrong. It is a sovereign wealth fund. Many countries around the world have sovereign wealth funds. Conservatives can say whatever they want, but at the end of the day, it is a sovereign wealth fund.

The other thing that is very clear is that we have the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the Bloc making the decision that Canada should not have a sovereign wealth fund. They cannot make the connection between the major projects, the sovereign wealth fund and how billions of dollars are going to be used for such things as, in some cases, those major projects moving forward and, in other cases, different ways that funds can be brought in to create thousands of jobs and all sorts of economic opportunities.

Why are the Conservatives stopping progress—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always rather funny to hear our Liberal colleagues speaking to us as though their words are actually backed up by results. They talk about a wealth fund, meaning a fund containing wealth, but it is actually financed through debt.

I said that the British Parliament refused to call it that. It was not the Conservatives in Canada who did so, but the British Parliament. The Prime Minister was an adviser on the project. He was told it would not be called that.

The other thing my colleague just said is that Canadians are not being given the chance to make a decision. Indeed, that is what the Liberals have been doing for the past 11 years. They spend without restraint. They impose their decisions on Canadians by telling them that it is the right thing to do and that they have nothing to worry about, but we go further into debt year after year. Things are not getting any better. The country's finances are not getting any better. Over the next five years, we will lose an average of $55 billion a year. They want us to believe that money will suddenly start growing on trees and everything will be fine.

That is gambling with taxpayers' money, and it is a mistake.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the Montreal Economic Institute estimates that the government's buy Canada policy could drive up costs by more than $12 billion a year. During an affordability crisis, does my colleague think paying much higher prices for Liberal vanity projects like Alto rail is the best way to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets?

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question.

Once again, it is a grand idea. Canada is going to build a high-speed rail system at the taxpayers' expense. California is currently trying it out. It has already cost $300 billion, and it is not over yet. Here, they say it will cost $90 billion, but they do not say how much a ticket will cost. They are selling a project, but they are not saying how many people will be on it or how much it will cost to maintain.

We already have airlines operating between Toronto and Montreal and between Montreal and Quebec City. They pay taxes and create jobs. Now the government is going to take responsibility for this and use public funds to compete with the private sector. What is more, the government is not telling people how much it will cost to ride this infamous train. It may turn out to be more expensive and less efficient than flying. Families will not use that train, but they will be paying for it their whole lives, for generations to come.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the bill is about how much money the Liberals have actually wasted here. The PrescribeIT program is a blinding example, and it is absolutely a waste of $300 million.

Canada Health Infoway is a so-called non-profit organization funded by the federal Minister of Health. For nearly a decade, the Liberals poured money into a program called “PrescribeIT”. They promised PrescribeIT would eliminate fax machines for prescription drugs, but as a result, it was a $300-million failure.

There was $300 million spent, and fewer than 5% of prescriptions ever made were on the platform. In my province of Manitoba, a province of over one million people, the program collected just over $1,200 in fee revenue over 15 months. The Liberals promised that it would be financially self-sustainable. What a joke. However, after spending $300 million with nothing to show for it, the Liberals quietly shut down the program and hoped that Canadians would never notice.

The CEO of Canada Health Infoway, who refused to disclose his own salary at the health committee, was earning nearly $900,000 a year while this was happening. This was for a non-profit organization. He was fired last month, after the Conservatives launched an investigation.

This is what Liberal spending looks like. It is a black hole with no accountability.