Evidence of meeting #14 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was havens.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
We'll just take a brief suspension while that's circulated and everyone has a chance to receive it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
We're resuming the committee.
Is there anyone who wishes to debate on the amendment?
Mr. Leitão, please go ahead.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Through the subamendment we have proposed, we agree that the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer and Mr. Page should appear before the committee.
We want to talk to both of them, and that would be—
Conservative
Philip Lawrence Conservative Northumberland—Clarke, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I know there are several new members across the way—and the parliamentary secretary has lost his voice—so maybe I would remind the new members that they can just go to a vote at any time.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
That is not a point of order. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence.
Mr. Leitão, please continue.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
That is useful information. We know that, and precisely what we would like to accomplish is to go to what Monsieur Garon was saying at first.
This is a matter of disrespect for institutions, since the institution in question is the House of Commons, which voted on Monday to approve this budget.
The House now wishes to move on to the next stage, which is the debate, discussion and analysis of Bill C-15 on budget implementation. I therefore believe that this should be our mission. This should be our primary role, precisely to maintain respect for the institution that is the House of Commons.
In a spirit of collaboration, we have therefore proposed adding Mr. Kevin Page to Mr. Garon’s proposal. We have also proposed that this discussion, this analysis and this debate, which would take place at our next meeting, be part of the pre‑study of the budget implementation bill. I do not think this is so far removed from what Mr. Garon is proposing.
Frankly, I don’t understand what the obstacle is and so I am somewhat mystified. In my opinion, it is important to move forward with this step because it is urgent that we do our job and implement the budget that the House has approved. It is urgent because the current situation is particularly complex. Obviously, the decisions made by our neighbours in the United States regarding tariff policy are, to put it generously, a little chaotic.
These decisions have had several impacts. First, they have created enormous economic uncertainty, not only in North America, but around the world. This uncertainty has caused a marked slowdown in the Canadian economy. Yes, the economy is slowing down. The second quarter was negative. We believe that, in terms of GDP growth, we will return to a positive situation in the third quarter.
It is obvious that the economy remains very weak due to this uncertainty and the chaotic economic policy of our neighbours. Very few companies are investing in anything until they know what the rules of the game are. This chaotic tariff policy has also put upward pressure on prices, particularly in a sector that our Conservative friends often mention, namely food. Food prices remain high, but this is really the result, the consequence of the American tariff policy, which has caused grocery prices to rise on both sides of the border.
Inflation remains a challenge. In Canada, it is under control and within the Bank of Canada’s target range. However, given the real challenges arising from upward pressure on the prices of essential goods such as food, the situation remains complex. This not only has an impact on everyday life, but also has macroeconomic effects because if people have to spend a larger portion of their budget on essential goods, they are obviously less inclined to invest or spend on other things. This contributes to the economic slowdown.
In light of the foregoing, I reiterate the need to begin work on implementing the budget. What we are facing now is not a simple cyclical fluctuation that will resolve itself in two or three quarters. It is not that at all. As our Prime Minister has said many times, this is a disruption.
We are facing a disruption, a structural shock affecting the Canadian economy, which is why we need to act quickly. That is why our budget, which was tabled and passed in the House of Commons, provides for huge investments in the Canadian economy. The budget does indeed call for a $78 billion deficit, but now is the time to face this uncertainty and help the economy to get through this period. The economy needs government support.
However, for this support to materialize and begin to take effect, we must do our job, and after a thorough analysis and study, implement the budget. I therefore fully agree with Mr. Turnbull’s subamendment that we invite the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer and Mr. Page. We would then spend the next two hours in committee questioning these two individuals. This would be part of the preliminary study to launch the process of implementing the budget bill.
Another issue is also particularly important; it is a problem we have had in Canada for a long time, and that is significantly low productivity. There is a lack of productivity growth. Once again, this budget contains some very interesting measures to boost productivity.
This brings us to the heart of Mr. Garon’s motion, in which he protests that the definition of capital investments is, at the very least, vague and seeks to hide something.
However, we are not hiding anything at all. All the information is there. And as my colleague Mr. Turnbull as well as Mr. Page mentioned, this is not a change in public accounting. What we are changing is the way the information is presented. We are not hiding any information. Ultimately, we are adding information so that Canadians are well aware of and well informed about government measures.
We have broken down government spending into operating expenses and investments. Everything is there. We are not hiding anything. The bottom line of the budget is clearly stated. It is a deficit of $78 billion. We are not trying to hide the size of this deficit, which is significant. Once again, $78 billion is a considerable amount, but it is 2.5% of Canada’s GDP.
When it comes to changes in public finances, I suggest we don’t look at them in absolute terms. We must always put them into perspective in relation to the size of the economy to determine whether they are exceptional, and whether we have the capacity to absorb such deficits. A deficit of 2.5% of Canadian GDP is not unprecedented. Unfortunately, in Canadian history, we have had other deficits that were much higher than 2.5% of GDP.
When we make comparisons with other countries, a deficit of 2.5% of GDP is quite manageable. I would remind you of the discussions that were held in Europe when they were trying to create the single currency, the euro. Mr. Garon might like me to mention this. The Maastricht rules were created. At that time, the Europeans clearly stated that European Union member countries should commit to having public deficits that did not exceed 3% of GDP. That was the golden rule of Maastricht.
Our deficit, which is supposedly huge, is equivalent to 2.5% of GDP. This deficit will decrease over the coming years.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Yes, Mr. Lawton, go ahead on your point of order.
Please make it a real point of order.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Absolutely.
I do not doubt my colleague's knowledge and interest in the Maastricht Treaty and the conversion to the euro. I fail to see what this particular line of the filibuster has to do with the amendment that we are supposed to be debating right now. It's a relevance point of order.
Conservative
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Are you saying the Maastricht Treaty is connected to Mr. Turnbull's amendment?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Mr. Lawton.
Mr. Lawton, Mr. Leitão has the floor.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
Carlos Leitão Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
We're talking about the budget. We're talking about the deficit. We're talking about the necessity to move ahead with the budget implementation act, and we are suggesting that we include the discussion with Mr. Page and Mr. Jacques within the prestudy of that.
The reason I was trying to explain why that is necessary is that the government felt that we had to intervene. We had to support the economy with massive investments, which we did. We are not hiding anything.
The deficit of 2.5% of GDP is entirely manageable for the Canadian federal government. It is within reason, particularly since, for the most significant portion of that deficit, those funds are going to be used to invest and to improve the supply side of the economy to make sure that we do have sufficient productive capacity so that we can grow in the future and grow in a non-inflationary way.
Madam Chair, in the meantime, we also need to realize that if we do nothing.... What this international situation has already caused is a lowering of the growth path for Canadian GDP. Canadian GDP is already on a lower path. It will still be going up in a kind of cyclical way, but in the absence of government intervention and sufficient government fiscal impetus to the economy, we would not be able to return to the pre-shock level of GDP activity.
All of this is to say that there is a sense of urgency in proceeding with our analysis and discussion of the budget implementation act and that we do that as soon as possible. In the prestudy to that analysis, if we can have Mr. Page and Mr. Jacques come here to discuss it with us, then I think we would all be better off, and we could start this very important work.
One should not take things for granted. Without public support at this very critical time, the Canadian economy could slide into a situation where we really don't want to go. We already have some sectors that have been targeted by our neighbours with specific tariffs—namely steel and aluminum but also lumber and, of course, automobiles. These are important sectors in our economy. This just shows that we need to get going with our own process of redirecting and making sure that the Canadian economy is on a more resilient and more stable path for the future.
This moment is not the one in which to start imposing very restrictive fiscal policy, as our Conservative friends appear to suggest. In recent discussions and in recent statements in the House of Commons, they view that this deficit is way too high.
The conclusion I take from those statements is that they would rather have $40 billion to $50 billion less spending so that the deficit would be smaller. However, at this particular point, if we were to have such a drastic reduction in public investment, that is what some economists usually refer to—and Monsieur Garon knows this very well—as toxic austerity, and I don't think we want to go there.
That would certainly plunge the Canadian economy into a deep recession if we were to do that at this particular time and adopt a superrestrictive fiscal policy. That's one of the issues, for example, we could discuss with Mr. Page and Mr. Jacques. What is their view of the role of fiscal policy? What do they think would happen to the Canadian economy if, in 2026, we were to cut $40 billion to $50 billion from planned investment, as we've stated in our budget? That's why it's very important to start this work.
I think there is general agreement that, yes, we should have Monsieur Jacques and then Monsieur Page appear before the committee. I think it's fairly consensual that we do that, but that appears to be something that our friends on the other side are not willing to accept, which is unfortunate. We think it's reasonable, on our side, to do it that way, to get the prestudy going and then to get going on the budget implementation act.
Madam Chair, for now, I would stop here, but I would certainly allow my colleagues to express their opinions as well, and I will return with some more comments.
Liberal
Kent MacDonald Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just say to my colleagues that basically we're looking at a motion and an amendment to the motion that are going to inform us a little more on making decisions as we go clause by clause on the BIA.
Mr. Garon talked about the capital and operating expense definitions in his motion. I'm not a former minister of finance from Quebec, but I ran a business, and we all know that capital items are investments and that operating expenses are operating expenses.
We can debate the criteria on either side, but I think we have to follow the will of Parliament. There was a vote that was very close, but there was a decision made. They voted in a majority to support this budget 2025. There are many measures in budget 2025 that constituents in my riding, in my province, in Atlantic Canada are waiting for. Due to the uncertainty in the economy, which is caused by the tariffs, we need to implement the investments, get on with the program of governing and move forward.
I guess I question why we're not going right to a vote on this because we should have full support for bringing in more informed opinions. All that the parliamentary secretary has amended is to bring in Kevin Page, a well-respected former parliamentary budget officer, appointed by Stephen Harper way back in the day. Surely a second opinion or more information is not going to harm our ability to study the budget implementation act going forward.
I think we really need to bear down on what our role here is at committee. The BIA is tabled in the House. There's a sense of urgency in the country to get some investment going so that we can turn our economy around. For those reasons, I support the amendment. I want to get on with the business of governing and studying the BIA so that we can implement all those measures of investment as soon as possible for the Canadian economy.
I'll turn it over to my colleague here now.
Liberal
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you to my colleagues for chiming in and contributing to the debate. I know that it's an important debate to have on this particular topic. We should get down to studying the BIA.
Thank you very much, my friends.
Monsieur Garon, I appreciate you very much.
I'd like to start by saying that Canada has a very strong fiscal position when compared to our G7 peers. For example, we have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. I know we often say that in Parliament, but I don't know if members opposite have had the chance to actually see how much lower our net debt-to-GDP ratio is than that of our G7 counterparts. Canada is at 13.3%. Germany, which is the closest to us, is at 48.7%. The United Kingdom is at 94.6%, the United States at 99.6%, France at 108.2%, Italy at 126.9% and Japan at 130.1%.
That's actually in the budget. It's a database that's collected by and published in “The Fiscal Monitor” of the International Monetary Fund. These are the latest indicators on who in the G7 has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio. That's a significant indicator of Canada's strength. As my colleague was eloquently saying earlier, this is one of the reasons why Canada has the fiscal space.
According to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Canada is focused on growth. I'll quote her: “The areas that Canada [has] identified—housing, infrastructure, energy...strategic projects. These are areas...[where] Canada can lift up productivity.” She says, “...we have countries in the G7 that are in a better [fiscal] position. Germany and Canada stand up in that regard...[they] recognise that [this is a] very testing time, [and] they need to use their fiscal space.”
This is an acknowledgement from the head of the International Monetary Fund, who recognizes that Canada and Germany, which share a AAA credit rating, actually have the fiscal space to invest in themselves, to invest in housing, infrastructure, energy and strategic projects, all of which will lift up productivity. Those investments are important.
Right now, at this juncture, obviously, because our country and its economy are being threatened by the trade war that has disrupted the global economy, and as our economy was intertwined with the United States for many years of integration between supply chains in Canada, there's a process of disentanglement that's going to need to take place. In order to do that, to counteract the drag on our economy, we need to make strategic investments, those investments in our industries that have strategic advantages to grow.
We're doing that with multiple very sizable investments, with a focus on capital investment. I know that some of my colleagues are interested in questioning the definition of what counts as a “capital investment” and I think that's a legitimate conversation to have. It's a legitimate conversation to start a study on the budget implementation act. I know that members would be aware that it was tabled in the House yesterday and that there are copies available for members of Parliament.
There's certainly information that can inform this debate, and it would be great to start it out in the right way, to have the parliamentary budget officers, the interim one and the former one, come and present their perspectives. Certainly, all committee members could take the time to ask them questions.
I also mentioned earlier that Canada has one of the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratios as well. It's currently at about 2.2%. I have those figures as well here that I believe are very important. Japan is the only country in the G7 that has a lower deficit-to-GDP ratio than Canada. Canada is at 2.2%. But notice that Japan has a lot higher debt-to-GDP ratio than Canada does. Canada has a 2.2% deficit-to-GDP ratio and has committed to a declining ratio over time. Germany has a 2.5% deficit-to-GDP ratio, Italy, 3.3%, United Kingdom, 4.3%, France, 5.4% and the United States, the highest in the G7, has a 7.4% deficit-to-GDP ratio. Those are numbers that may not mean anything to members opposite, but they certainly imply that Canada has a healthy balance sheet.
Experts around the world, including the IMF, including the Bank of Canada governor, including former PBO Kevin Page, have all said Canada has the fiscal space. In fact, Kevin Page recently said, “I'm comfortable with budgetary deficits in the 2.5 per cent range of GDP.” He indicates that our economy is weaker than it needs to be and that we need to help grow that economy. By making these investments that we're proposing in budget 2025, this will allow us to increase productivity and growth in Canada and make us more competitive.
I had mentioned earlier that there were “productivity super-deductions”, which is a fancy way of saying that there are accelerated cost allowances or accelerated depreciation. These measures in our budget have made Canada even more competitive. We were already one of the lowest and most competitive in terms of a marginal effective tax rate. Compared to the OECD average we are now 4.5% more competitive and the United States is 4.4% more competitive. That to me is a good indicator of how much capital we'll be able to attract because that's what lots of investors will pay attention to. If Japan or the United Kingdom is around 30% of a marginal effective tax rate, that's significantly higher than Canada, which will now be at 13.2%. Those are significant differences that make Canada competitive in the race to secure foreign direct investment.
I think that we should all agree with a very rational proposal that I've made here on ensuring that we can have a balanced and fair debate, which is that we can kick off this budget implementation act prestudy with some experts. It would be great to also have the Minister of Finance come to committee. It would be great to have some fruitful, productive conversations with other committee members about how we could structure that prestudy. We could certainly divide up the budget into themes and have witnesses and experts come and talk about the BIA. I think it would be very useful for us to get their perspectives.
I know members opposite normally welcome those opportunities. I can't understand why they wouldn't at this point. I guess that's their prerogative. Maybe they're more interested in playing partisan politics instead of actually studying the BIA.
We know the drag on our economy has been pretty significant. The budget goes to great lengths to show just how our economy is being impacted. There's a whole section after the comprehensive expenditure review that shows how we're spending less on the government and more on capital investment to spur it.
It shows just how much Canada's economy is being impacted by the global trade friction and trade war that were unfortunately started by the new administration in the United States. The U.S. average tariff rate on trade counterparts in Canada is one of the lowest in the world. That's relatively good news for Canadian industries, but we know it is not felt the same way across Canada. In fact, there are key industries that are disproportionately impacted. We know that steel, aluminum, lumber and the automotive sector have all been drastically impacted by the tariffs placed upon their industries—and unfairly so.
We also know these tariffs have weakened Canada's economy. They've caused a degree of uncertainty in the marketplace that is felt globally. There's one point in the budget where we've included a table showing the world uncertainty index, which shows that investors and business owners are feeling a degree of uncertainty not seen since the 2008 financial crisis. It's actually greater than that. It shows up on graphs as greater than what people experienced in the 2008 financial crisis.
That crisis was a hard one for our economy, but I would argue that with what Canada's been through—the pandemic and the postpandemic shocks to our economy—we're now experiencing more shocks throughout our economy. This one is even bigger because it requires a reorientation of trading flows and relationships all across the world.
We're seeing chronically low business investment because of an overreliance on U.S. demand for Canadian products in the past. We see a lot of these things impacting our economy. We've seen some job layoffs. The economy has been quite resilient and bounced back in other ways, with job numbers in the past couple of months exceeding expectations. We are trying to counteract a number of these things that are dragging down the Canadian economy by making investments, buying Canadian and ensuring that we can spur productivity gains and be more competitive from a tax perspective. We've done a lot of things in this budget to encourage greater resilience and growth, ensure competitiveness, boost productivity and stimulate our industrial base.
Through the Prime Minister's economic growth caucus, we've heard from many stakeholders. In fact, all of the chief economists from the largest banks in the country came and made recommendations about how the Government of Canada could address many of the challenges we're experiencing based on the degree of uncertainty. Many of those were included in this year's budget.
We acknowledge that Canada has a lot of strengths. We have a lot of opportunities to diversify trade, and we have strategic sectors and industries that can grow, but we need investment to do that. We need to create certainty where there has been some uncertainty placed upon these industries. In order to do that, I think we've done our very best to ensure that there are things like investment tax credits. Those are clearly outlined for critical mineral projects, for mineral development in general and for those projects at the exploration phase, but those also ensure that there are funding and financing options at other critical phases for the development of those resources.
We've often said—and heard—that Canada is a natural resource-based economy: It is true, traditionally, but we also have other opportunities that exist across our economy. In fact, statistics show that our small and medium-sized enterprises actually contribute more jobs and trade with other countries. I think that could be a focus, as well, for when we get into discussing measures to support small and medium-sized enterprises across Canada and to continue to diversify trade with other countries because, of course, there are opportunities to grow businesses all across Canada. Buying Canadian right now really is a core part of our strategy because it ensures that, as we move forward with these major projects—attracting the capital needed from our pension plans, from global investors into key infrastructure that Canada needs, whether it's energy infrastructure, transportation infrastructure....
There are many forms of infrastructure. I'm sure the members have seen the list of projects and the rounds of those projects with the Major Projects Office. These are good news for our country. There is absolutely no doubt that these will bring jobs, attract investment, grow our economy and serve Canadians for generations to come. This is what my friend Monsieur Garon loves about the budget. He loves the term “generational investment”. It's his favourite term, he tells me over and over again in private. He really enjoys that because he understands how important the next generations are for our country and the fact that these investments will serve Canadians for many years to come.
Young people really need us to focus on growing the economy and unlocking opportunities for them, and I think this budget does that. There are opportunities: In my region, we have the Darlington new nuclear project. I was so grateful to attend this announcement with the Prime Minister. There are four small modular reactors, the first in the G7 that will be deployed. The four reactors, once they're built, will provide 1.2 million homes with clean energy. This is remarkable progress.
Yes, I know opposition members have, at times, said, “These projects were already going to happen.” It's true that some of these projects were moving forward, but that doesn't mean that they can't be expedited, and that attracting the capital they need to actually get to completion won't serve them well. In fact, it will serve Canadians well to expedite these projects, to ensure the approvals necessary so that the Darlington new nuclear project happens and that the four small modular reactors, which will provide 21,700 jobs.... That is a significant number. A lot of those, about 18,000 of them, are in the construction phase, with 3,700 in the operations of those SMR facilities in the future. That's significant. In my region of Durham, where we have two nuclear reactors, Pickering and Darlington, which are being refurbished, we believe that these are....
I had neighbours who for many years worked at Ontario Power Generation. They were great hard-working people. I'm glad to see so many of them very supportive of the fact that our government has unlocked $2 billion through the Canada growth fund. That's not just public investment. That includes private investment. Remember, the Canada growth fund was set up by our government to offer financing for major projects and to help pursue our climate objectives strategically across Canada. We've had a number of announcements. The mandate is focused on leveraging private capital to the tune of about a three-time multiplier to any public investment that's put in.
Again, when you think about what we're doing...and this goes to the heart of what I think Monsieur Garon wants to focus on by having the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer come to the committee. I'm arguing that obviously we should also have the former one, who is sort of the mentor to the interim PBO. When the government puts forward things like the Canada growth fund, we're using kind of a blended finance model where public investment is being used to de-risk private investment in areas where that's necessary. This helps to draw in private capital, to crowd it in, and helps to get these kinds of big projects funded and built. Obviously, with the regulatory review process being streamlined with the Major Projects Office, we have the ability to really pull together all the regulatory approvals that are necessary into one term sheet, almost, that says your project will be approved if you meet all these criteria.
That's the point of having a major projects office. It's to simplify a process that has been very arduous and onerous for many stakeholders who are trying to get major projects done in Canada. We've heard this from all kinds of stakeholders across the country for years. I'm glad we've stepped up to address that.
Getting back to the new nuclear project in Darlington as one of many projects that our government is investing in, again, this is part of our commitment in this budget to build infrastructure, housing, defence and these strategic projects that I think will really boost our economy. Again, the Premier of Ontario, a good Progressive Conservative.... I never thought I would be saying that. I'm sitting here saying, wow, at this point, the person I thought for many years I had many differences with was there standing with us making investments in the new nuclear project. We had some Progressive Conservatives in Ontario standing up for the new nuclear project. It was great to see.
It's too bad the Conservative Party in Parliament at the federal level can't see the value in investing in Canada. It seems they have no regard for what it takes to get investment into our country and get Canada's economy moving forward. To me, the Conservative Party was always the party that claimed to be fiscally responsible and that claimed to boost the economy and to care about businesses, and yet they voted down deductions for businesses that would allow them to invest in themselves and boost their productivity and growth. It's like they don't want Canada's economy to grow. It's so apparent that they don't seem to really care about Canada's economy growing at all. They don't want to support our business community.
My business community in Whitby is very strong. We have roughly 900 members—I might be exaggerating, as it could be only 800 members—in the Whitby Chamber of Commerce. It's a significant community of small businesses. When they hear about immediate expensing, when they hear about mobilizing capital, and when they hear about major infrastructure projects, they are ecstatic. They can't understand why the Conservative Party of Canada won't support them in their times of need and won't help unlock capital for them.
Conservatives won't help mobilize, reduce red tape or streamline approval processes for projects. They can't understand where the Conservative Party is today. I don't think they understand what the party of the Conservatives at the federal level stands for at all.
They see a contrast. They see the Ontario Conservatives standing with our Prime Minister, making these big announcements and supporting our automotive industry. It's just a conundrum. I don't think many business operators and owners can understand these days where the federal party really is. Do they care about the economy? Do they care about businesses? Do they really want to grow the economy? It seems the answer is clearly “no.”
There are so many other major projects on the list that are exciting. I got to travel to Iqaluit.
Is it Mr. Stevenson who is new to the committee? Welcome.
I'm very excited about the projects on the major projects list and the one in Iqaluit in particular. I got to go to Iqaluit during the pre-budget consultation process and hear from the Inuit leadership.
I think I'm getting my voice back.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you. I'm almost done.
The project in Iqaluit is a hydro project. It's a very exciting project. It's going to ensure that Iqaluit and individuals in remote communities don't have to burn diesel to power their communities and heat their homes, which is what they do now. I hope I don't botch the number, but I think it's 13 million litres of diesel. I'm going to check that just to make sure. It's a very significant amount of diesel that will no longer need to be burned in those communities, obviously saving those emissions from entering our atmosphere. It's contributing to our action on climate change while also ensuring that those communities have renewable and reliable energy for many generations to come.
I think that's good news. There's no way to spin that as bad news. We had better than expected job numbers. I always say, “Well, there's no way the Conservatives could spin that as bad news,” and they still do anyway. They stretch it and they contort it into bad news somehow. They find a way. When the economy grows, they're going to spin it into bad news. It's always the way. I guess it's just something I've gotten used to over six years of being in Parliament. There's no missed opportunity to turn good news into bad news when it comes to the Conservatives today.
I really believe in our budget. I believe in the trade diversification work that the Prime Minister is obviously today in Parliament being criticized for. Conservatives don't want our Prime Minister to be out there diversifying our trade, disentangling our economy from the U.S. and actually counteracting the significant drags on our economy that we're experiencing.
It's as if, at all costs, our economy needs to fail so that their narrative can stay in existence and that we don't take the wind out of their narrative. It's a shame that they don't really care about Canadians actually being successful but rather just seem to want us to fail. They think that owning the Liberals is a way to somehow support Canadians, but it's not. It's not support for anybody. It's actually just disrupting the progress and the growth in our economy that will be achieved by passing the budget implementation act.
There are so many measures in the BIA. I've had a chance to go through it. I'm very lucky as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to have had the chance to dive into the details on the BIA. There are so many tax deductions and very useful aspects of the BIA that relate to so many things that Canadians want to see. There are so many aspects of our economy and society that will be strengthened.
Just on the defence portion of it, our defence industrial strategy continues to support that industrial base that I talked about. I remember when we met with National Bank's chief economist—
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Yes. They said that the best thing that the federal government can do is support an industrial base to grow again in Canada. There are diverse perspectives across the chief economists at our banks, but I think many people agree with the perspective that our industrial base in Canada is so important for the success of our economy.
I see Mr. Lawrence agreeing. It's so great to hear that in committee. I do appreciate his support. I wish it converted to a vote of actually supporting things that support our industrial strategy.
The defence industrial strategy is related to the industrial strategy, of course, because Canada can continue to differentiate itself and invest in defence and innovation.
I recently showed my support for Ontario Tech University, which is in Oshawa, right next door to my riding. It's a really great university that does all kinds of great work. It's sort of like the technology epicentre for Ontario. They're doing work on nuclear and on defence innovation. They have all kinds of stuff going on in terms of research, like the ability to work on drones and other technology that can apply to our defence strategy, which is really key.
What's surprising to me is that I watched as Conservatives voted against raises for our armed forces members. I don't know how they can look in the mirror when they go home at night or in the morning when they wake up. I don't know how I would look the Canadian Armed Forces members in the eyes when voting against significant pay raises that they've been waiting for and have been rightfully deserving of for a long time.
We've also committed to updating the facilities. CFB Trenton, for example, and all of the other military bases and barracks are going to be upgraded. They've fallen into disarray from underinvestment under past Conservative governments. We're stepping up to ensure.... Remember that defence spending was under 1% under Stephen Harper. We've brought it to 2% in this year and it's going up significantly from that to meet our NATO target five years ahead of schedule.
I don't know how the Conservatives cannot support the men and women who serve in our armed forces and who essentially sign up to protect our sovereignty. That they wouldn't support a pay raise, support them to have upgraded facilities or support the innovative technology and equipment that—
