Debates of Oct. 9th, 2025

Opposition Motion

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the chief government whip for that reminder, but I had heard enough.

The hon. member for Barrie South—Innisfil.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, they do not like the truth. That is all I have to say.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, International Development; the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, Employment; the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Employment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding that the comments made by the member for Regina—Lewvan a few moments ago about what I said are completely inaccurate, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with the member for Whitby. I am very much looking forward to listening to his speech.

I have spent quite a bit of time in the chamber today, so I have had the opportunity to listen to what has been said. I must say that some of the stuff I have been hearing from the Conservatives is quite alarming and hypocritical and, quite frankly, does not make a lot of sense when we look at their actions.

I will start with what we heard recently from the member for Lethbridge, the member for Barrie South—Innisfil and the member for Huron—Bruce earlier. They all talked about inflationary spending. They suggested the government created the inflationary problem that the whole world has seen. The Government of Canada spent money and then the whole world saw inflation. That is what Conservatives would like us to believe.

What I find most ironic about that comment is that I am sure the member for Regina—Lewvan, who was talking about me a few moments ago, and all members who have made comments are aware that they ran on a platform that had 106 billion dollars' worth of new spending in it. Are they now trying to say, indirectly, that their own platform was inflationary and was contributing to inflation? If I listen to what they are saying now, that is exactly what I am hearing.

It is more than that. I have been in this House long enough to have heard countless speeches, as I am sure the member for Whitby has, from Conservatives who get up and say the carbon tax has contributed to inflation and the carbon tax is the reason food prices are higher right now. Over and over again, we have heard that. Let us just throw out the fact that Ukraine produces a third of the world's wheat and is in the middle of a war and that extracting all of that wheat from the global supply has a massive impact on inflation. Let us forget about all of that. It was the carbon tax. The Conservatives said that all we had to do was get rid of the carbon tax, and then suddenly inflation would disappear.

Well, guess what. The carbon tax is gone. Have all the prices the Conservatives said would drop instantly dropped? No, they have not, because it was not contributing to inflation. This is the exact same logic they are trying to apply now.

Earlier, I got a real kick out of the member for Calgary Crowfoot talking about how the Conservatives are great fiscal stewards of the economy and the finances of the government and had left the new Liberal government in 2015 with an incredible surplus. It is as if he was trying to suggest that Conservatives know something about bringing in balanced budgets. They know absolutely nothing about it.

Let us go back. I will just talk about the preceding two Conservative governments. Brian Mulroney had 10 budgets, and he balanced zero. There were zero balanced budgets by Brian Mulroney. I understand that probably very few members of the Conservative Party were here when Brian Mulroney was here. There is at least one currently in the House right now, and that is great, but I will make this a little more relevant for some of the newer members who may have been here when Stephen Harper was here.

It is true that Stephen Harper had three surpluses out of the nine budgets he introduced in this House. Let us look at those budgets. The first two budgets were at the beginning of Stephen Harper's term, when he was first elected. He had a $13-billion surplus, but what is interesting is that the year before that, Paul Martin also had a $13-billion surplus. Stephen Harper actually inherited, from Paul Martin, a $13-billion surplus.

Then in year two of Harper's government, he had a $9-billion surplus. It was on its way down. Then it vanished, and he was in a deficit position all the way through, right up until the last year when the Canadian Taxpayers Federation or some right-wing association told him it was absolutely imperative that he balance the budget. What did Stephen Harper do? He set out to balance the budget.

How did he do that? He did it by selling shares of GM at bargain prices. He slashed veterans' offices. For the first time in recorded Canadian history, our percentage of GDP invested in the military dropped below 1%. It has only ever existed below 1% for one year. That was in the year 2015, when it was at 0.96% of GDP. That is the legacy. That is the surplus. When the member for Calgary Crowfoot comes in here and says that the Conservatives left a surplus, I guess they did, but they did it on the backs of Canadians.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that. I just said they did it on the backs of Canadians, and at least four or five Conservatives started cheering and clapping. That just happened moments ago as I was standing here.

I have heard a lot of other misinformation in the time I have been sitting in the House today and listening to the debate. I heard a really interesting exchange. One thing the public does not get to see is the heckling that goes on back and forth. During a speech being given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, when the parliamentary secretary was talking about the Canada child benefit, yelled out that the Conservatives started it, that it was their program. Nothing could be further from the truth. What the Conservatives had under Stephen Harper was the universal child care benefit.

What was the universal child care benefit? I am sure my Conservative colleagues here today are still extremely proud of that. They can go ahead and clap if they want, although I did not hear any claps there, which is interesting since I put them on the spot and offered them the floor to applaud. It gave the exact same amount of money for every child to every parent. That meant a millionaire got the exact same amount of money, because of course, the Conservatives would never want to miss an opportunity to send a cheque to a millionaire.

What we did, which was truly transformative, was put in the Canada child care benefit so that millionaires and people who were extremely well off, those who did not need the cheque, did not receive the cheque. It gave us the ability to provide more to those who really needed it. I am bringing this up and spending time on it because there is a fundamental difference between government intervention by a Liberal and government intervention by a Conservative. Liberals believe in giving people opportunities so they can have the best shot.

We talked about the national school food program. When there was an exchange going on, I heard the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek say that it was not working. She was heckling that. I can say that the Food Sharing Project in Kingston delivers food to schools throughout my entire riding and neighbouring ridings. As a matter of fact, a lot of the schools in the jurisdictions of the member for Lanark—Frontenac and the member to the east of me, the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, receive food through its programs as well. I visited the Food Sharing Project and have seen exactly what it is and the impact that it has. This is not some imaginary bureaucracy; this is real.

I will leave it at that. Once again, I have been subjected to a day of listening to the misinformation of the Conservatives, who are proclaiming that certain things exist and the reasons they exist, which are quite frankly not true. I hope I have contributed a bit of clarity today.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend's flair for the dramatic, and he said something that was really on point, which does not happen a lot in his speeches. He said the Harper government balanced three budgets and the Justin Trudeau government balanced zero budgets. That is the truth. I would agree with him.

Harper went through a recession, a financial meltdown, in 2008. Trudeau went through COVID. Harper's government came back with a balanced budget after a few years. The Prime Minister is not on pace to balancing the budget ever given his unsustainable spending. The Trudeau government added more debt to the country than all other prime ministers combined. That is not rhetoric; that is fact.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member listened only to the one sentence, then he has done himself a huge disservice, because what I said is that Stephen Harper's two so-called surpluses were on the heels of Paul Martin. They were Paul Martin's surpluses. The surplus he had just in time for the election in 2015 was done on the backs of veterans. It was done on the backs of the military, of dropping our military to 0.6% of GDP. Is that something the member is proud of? It sounds like it to me.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, sound management of public finances is a concern for us in the Bloc Québécois.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about his government's recent decision to drop the digital services tax. We know that we will be facing a huge deficit. We are still waiting for the numbers on November 4.

With a 3% tax on the activities of multinational web companies in Canada, the digital services tax would have brought in $7.2 billion over five years. Why did this government decide to forgo this revenue?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member would have to ask the Prime Minister about the digital services tax, but I will say that he is absolutely right; it is the job of the government to manage the finances and to introduce a budget.

The questions Canadians have is this: Do we take the word of and look to an individual who has been the governor of two central banks and who, by the way, Stephen Harper himself said was responsible for getting us through the 2008 financial crisis, or do we take the word of the Leader of the Opposition, who has been here since he was 24 years old and has had no experience outside this place? I will leave it to the Canadian public to decide.

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

Mr. Speaker, the chief government whip mentioned the opposition's habit of revising history a little bit. We are given revisionist histories and things taken out of context. It contributes to misinformation and disinformation among the public.

Could my colleague please comment on the damage that does to political discourse?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition dumbs down issues and tries to suggest that the global financial crisis was the sole responsibility of Justin Trudeau. What we have when individuals do that, and when they use the narrative and the language to support that, is a misinformed public. We want the public to be informed so they can make proper decisions. It begs the question, why do the Conservatives not want the public to be informed so they can make the best decision on the questions they have to face?

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

Mr. Speaker, there was a point of misinformation from the other side of the floor. Every opportunity the Liberals get, they discuss the shutting down of veterans offices. The truth of the matter on that is that those offices were not shut down; they were moved—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

Quiet.

Mr. Speaker, they were moved so they could serve veterans without the overhead of the offices. The call to have those offices removed came from the bureaucrats who responded across the government to the fact that we needed to remove some funding—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give time for the chief government whip to respond.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, leave it to the Conservatives to blame something on the bureaucrats: “Oh, the bureaucrats did it. They were the ones who moved things around and closed them.” I think I will just leave it at that.

[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)]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to follow what was a very good and entertaining, but obviously factual, speech from the member for Kingston and the Islands. It is great to be here to debate this afternoon.

I understand that the members opposite are very eager to see our plan for growing the Canadian economy, so let me reassure them. On November 4, the government will table a historic budget that will both catalyze growth and outline our ambitious plan to refocus day-to-day spending and invest in the Canadian economy. Budget 2025 will build on our ongoing work that is focused on building a stronger economy and delivering for all Canadians.

I would like to take a moment to highlight some of the important ways we are making life more affordable here at home, while ensuring that we are working to build an economy that will benefit Canadians for decades to come.

As we all know, the global economy is undergoing a seismic shift, and there is no doubt that Canada must change with it. Canadians all across the country recognize this, which is why this past April they provided our government with a clear mandate to build a resilient and modern Canadian economy, the strongest in the G7.

Bill C-4 was one of the first bills introduced in the House, very soon after the House resumed. It was introduced by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue in the spring. Bill C-4 received unanimous consent from the House. I recently said in the House that common sense seems to be lacking. It is not so common in the Conservative Party today, but common sense was provided at that moment, when Conservative members actually supported our tax cut bill, which is good news for all Canadians.

I am a proud member of the finance committee. We are studying Bill C-4 right now, and we look forward to the bill's getting speedy passage back to the House and receiving royal assent.

From a middle-class tax cut that is saving money for 22 million Canadians to eliminating the GST for first-time buyers on new homes up to $1 million and reducing the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes between $1 million and $1.5 million, the legislation will put more money in Canadians' pockets. Canadians need that right now of course. These measures complement a whole package of other measures that were Liberal initiatives in the past Parliament, all of which were voted against by the Conservative Party, including dental care; child care; the Canada child benefit, which is indexed to inflation, by the way; the national school food program and many more.

There have also been other supports that our government has put in place under previous leadership in the past Parliament that reduced mortgage insurance, moved to 30-year mortgages and, again, offered tax-free savings accounts for first-time homebuyers. These measures, taken in context, complement a whole series of affordability measures that our government has put in place.

What is new is that the Conservatives actually supported Bill C-4 and voted to get it through to committee. I hope that they will vote it through the House when it comes back from committee, hopefully soon. The other piece of Bill C-4 is to essentially remove from federal law the consumer fuel charge, which would essentially allow us to focus carbon pricing on large emitters.

Additionally, we continue to work diligently to address the housing crisis by focusing on driving down costs and making housing more affordable and accessible for Canadians. To this end, we recently launched Build Canada Homes, a new federal entity that will transform public-private collaboration and deploy modern methods of construction as it catalyzes the creation of entirely new Canadian housing industries from prefab to modular, to mass timber and to any other innovative method. I visited a group at York University that is 3-D printing three-storey homes, which was just incredible to see.

Canada's innovation will lead the way. Build Canada Homes is part of our stepping up to support that industry. This critical tool will leverage public lands. It will offer flexible financial incentives to attract private capital, facilitate large portfolio projects and support modern manufacturers to build the homes that Canadians need.

It is not only the Canadian housing industry that we are transforming; we are also streamlining the federal approval process to get major projects built faster. For too long, the construction of major projects has been stalled by arduous and inefficient approval processes, leaving enormous investment on the table. The newly launched Major Projects Office will fast-track nation-building projects by streamlining regulatory assessment and approvals and will help to structure financing, all in close partnership with provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and private sector partners and investors. This in turn will create good-paying jobs for thousands of Canadians across this country.

I remember when the Prime Minister first announced the launch of five major projects. What struck me that day was what the Conservative leader said. He called those five major projects “pathetic”. He called tens of thousands of good-paying jobs for Canadians pathetic. He called 60 billion dollars' worth of economic activity in our economy pathetic. Members do not want to know what I think is pathetic.

Our government is moving with urgency and determination to build the strongest economy in the G7, but that urgency demands new ways of budget planning. That is exactly what we are doing. The finance minister outlined recently a new way of budgeting, the cornerstone of which is a new capital budgeting framework that distinguishes and prioritizes spending that stimulates public sector and private sector capital investment versus day-to-day operational spending. This will mean more transparency in decision-making and more opportunity for stringency and scrutiny of taxpayer dollars allocated to investments that will grow Canada's economic potential. This follows many G7 countries.

Going forward, the government will also adopt a fall budget cycle starting with budget 2025. The fall timing, which is before the main estimates, will facilitate the oversight and study of public expenditure for parliamentarians, inherently making the process more transparent. It will also support effective financial planning for federal departments and agencies and for provinces and territories, as well as for Canadian businesses, allowing for more informed decision-making on where public funds will have the most impact.

The updated budget cycle will also closely align with the construction season and provide increased certainty and predictability for businesses and investors, giving builders and investors a real head start. The new fall budget will be followed by a spring economic fiscal update as the new fiscal year begins, as well as pre-budget consultations over the course of the summer, allowing for ample time to build a budget that fully reflects the current needs of Canadians.

Before I conclude, I would like to take a minute to highlight Canada's fiscal advantage and how we stack up against G7 countries. In 2024, Canada's net debt-to-GDP ratio stood at just 11.9%, compared to the G7 average, excluding Canada, at 100.4%. That is 11% compared to 100%. In fact, Canada's net debt burden remains lower today than that of any G7 country prior to the pandemic. Canada is also expected to have had the smallest deficit in the G7 as a share of the economy this year.

Canada's fiscal position also stands out among a broader set of 30 advanced economies, posting deficit and net debt-to-GDP ratios among the lowest in the group. This marks a sharp contrast with Canada's fiscal situation in the 1980s and early 1990s, when sustained deficits led to a rapid rise in the net debt burden and an erosion of Canada's fiscal advantage relative to its peers.

Canada is also one of only two G7 economies, along with Germany, to have a AAA rating from at least two of the three major global credit rating agencies. Our AAA credit rating helps maintain investors' confidence and keeps Canada's borrowing costs as low as possible. Canada has a lower interest rate on debt than the United States has, which I would say is noteworthy.

Budget 2025 will highlight how all our actions are guided by a new fiscal discipline. We will spend less to invest more. I know that is hard for Conservatives to understand, but spending less on government operations allows us fiscal room to invest more and to attract private capital, playing the catalytic role in our economy that the Prime Minister has talked about over and over again.

That is how to produce and create a virtuous cycle between investment and growth in the economy, which will increase tax revenues in the future and allow us to sustain many of the social programs and gains we have made under previous Liberal governments that we will need in order to have the fiscal room to continue to support. This is why we have initiated a comprehensive expenditure review to ensure that we get the most out of every Canadian dollar.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is frustrating to hear these words out of this member. We know that there are 86,000 people out of work. There are now four million visits to the food bank, and one in four people in Toronto rely on the food bank for food.

The Liberals are talking about these major projects that are going to get fast-tracked. A major project near this member's riding in Darlington is the GE Hitachi SMR. Construction started over a year ago, and I just got an update that the project is progressing. Where are the jobs that the Liberals are claiming are going to be protected by this project that has already started?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is one of the best opportunities I have ever had in the House to talk about the Darlington nuclear project, the SMR project, which is going to create 1,600 jobs in my region of Durham. I am very proud of that project being listed as a major project, and it is moving forward quickly. That is how we build the economy in Canada. That is how we create more jobs. I am very proud of that project making the major projects list and being expedited through the approval process.

Members opposite do not understand Bill C-5. I suggest they go back and read it. If I am not mistaken, I think they voted in favour of it. It is surprising that they never read the bill, but that does not surprise me much.

Let us get back to the facts. Canada has the lowest tariff rate of any U.S. trade partner. Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, and Canada has an AAA credit rating, one of only two countries in the G7.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am fascinated by the discussions and debates in the House today. I really feel like I am witnessing Harry Potter-like budget magic, or highly creative budgeting. Numbers can be made to say a lot of things. That is exactly what my colleague is showing us.

On the other hand, I am trying to see how we can properly control public finances when we are forgoing revenue like the carbon tax. The Conservatives are going to have to explain that to me at some point. The Liberals say they are heading for a deficit, but in these difficult economic times, they are completely unwilling to provide targeted assistance for people who really need it.

This morning, I asked a question about increasing OAS benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74. I would now like to hear my colleague's thoughts on employment insurance and the support measures needed in these difficult times—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member to give the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue the chance to respond.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been making the argument that Canada is in a strong fiscal position. I know members opposite do not quite seem to understand the fact that we do have fiscal room to continue investing in the Canadian economy. If we do not do that, the economy will shrink. We need the economy to continue to grow. We need to build a strong economy. We need to diversify our trade.

The current Governor of the Bank of Canada came out about a week and a half ago saying that it is exactly the right strategy. What the Liberal government is doing, which is to diversify trade and invest in the infrastructure that we need in order to get our goods to other markets, is exactly how to increase productivity and wages in Canada. It is exactly the way to make life more affordable for Canadians.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his very good speech, which updated the House on the economic stance of Canada. He just mentioned that the opposition is perhaps not understanding. Is it that they are not understanding, or is it that they want to continue to mislead Canadians?

The motion before us includes the former prime minister. Is it that they miss him? Do they really care about what Canadians voted for in this election? Maybe the member can tell us why the Conservatives' rhetoric remains the same.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an unhealthy obsession that the opposition members have with our former prime minister. They were really tethered to our former prime minister and bashed him at every moment. It seems like they developed a kind of dependence on that. Now that we have a new Prime Minister, who has a far superior understanding of economics and investment, they do not seem to know what to do any more but misinform people, which they do daily in the House. It seems they do not have an understanding of economics.