Debates of Nov. 17th, 2025

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Automotive Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to rise in this House. I suspect members opposite knew I had the first late show this evening, and that is why so many of them are still here, which we are not used to seeing in Adjournment Proceedings. I am very grateful for that.

I note that the question I am asking of the government comes on the heels of this House's passage of what I will say is a very dangerous budget for Canada and for Canadians. It is a budget that cements a $78-billion deficit, a budget that signs Canada up to $321 billion more in new debt over the coming years and a budget that will allow $55 billion to be spent this year on debt interest alone. That is more than the government spends on health transfers going to provinces. That is more than the government spends on child tax incentives. That is more than Canada collects in GST.

When I bring that up, it is to say that these numbers have meaning. Canada's fiscal situation is dire after 10 years of mismanagement by the Liberal government. This is something we have heard warnings of. We have the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7. The deficit of $78 billion is one that the Liberal government and the Prime Minister said would not exist, because he promised a deficit of no more than $62 billion.

The reason this is so important is that Canadians could not afford to run their own household budgets the way the government is running Canada's budget. In fact, I do not think the Prime Minister would have had the deal he did at Brookfield if he had run Brookfield the way he is now running Canada and Canada's books. Where is the master banker we were promised? Where is the master financier, the guy who can move at the speed of crisis? Where is that Prime Minister?

The question I asked in this House a few weeks ago and on which I rise again today has to do with the auto sector specifically. My riding of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South has a great many employees who have been affected by a number of plant closures over recent weeks. Some are from the CAMI plant in the neighbouring riding of Oxford, and some are vendors and suppliers to CAMI around the region, including in my riding, where hundreds of workers, well over 1,200, have been put directly at economic risk, their livelihoods terminated because of the government's failure to fulfill a promise that it made, the key promise by the Prime Minister to stand up for the auto sector.

There has been, from the Liberal government, a fair bit in the way of revisionism. When we called out what the Prime Minister said, which is that he would get a deal with the United States, a deal with Donald Trump, by July, the Liberals said that he did not really mean that. He meant that he would work toward it. It was not really a deadline; it was a guideline. Well, for Canadians who put their trust in the Prime Minister to secure an economic future for this country, that is a broken promise.

In this budget, we do not have anything resembling a plan that will protect auto workers and will protect manufacturing jobs in my region and across the country. This budget will only put Canadians at risk of having to spend more in debt interest and having to deal with more inflation because of runaway debt and deficit spending, with no plan to secure our jobs and secure an economic future for our country.

Will the Prime Minister say once and for all that the Liberals have a plan to protect the auto sector and reveal what it is?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, we are in the aftermath of quite a historic moment in the House, where the main budget motion has passed on a budget that brings forward an investment plan focusing on investments in housing, investments in infrastructure, investments in defence, investments in talent and investments in productivity. They are investments that are really about triggering and unleashing private sector investment. We predict that the budget will bring forward $500 billion in additional private sector investment to this country over the next five years, and that is really private sector investment that we welcome throughout the different regions of this country.

I will give some examples from the auto sector, particularly in St. Thomas. The hon. member would be aware of the new gigafactory, which has broken ground there now. There will be 3,000 direct jobs, 32,000 square metres of concrete and 4,850 metric tonnes of rebar. It will be a significant plant that will bring thousands of jobs to the hon. member's riding, and as he is well aware, when we bring direct jobs into the auto sector, there are all kinds of spinoff jobs, indirect jobs and induced jobs.

The hon. member will know well the mayor of St. Thomas, who was quoted saying, a few weeks ago, “The mayor hasn't stopped smiling since.” He is referring to himself. He continued with this: “Generations in the future can...have a job that pays well enough to buy a home in St. Thomas and become part of a really vibrant community.” That is some of the positive investment that comes into the next generation of automotive technology in Canada, which we know is increasingly electric.

I invite my hon. colleague to come on over and see the benefits of the growth of EV technology over the longer term. It is something that is being recognized in his community, and it is part of a larger defence of the auto sector that involves also being very attentive to the concerns that have been raised.

The hon. member mentioned Ingersoll. The Minister of Industry has been present in Ingersoll and in Brampton, sitting down with the workers and being very direct and forceful with the companies that are threatening to not honour some of the commitments they have made, not just to this side of the House but to all Canadians, including the member's constituents.

We think this is the appropriate approach to take: to be engaged with the workers, to be engaged with the Canadian sector that is here, and to be very engaged with those who are deploying capital and show them the value of deploying capital here, whether they are the American companies, American-based companies or global companies.

Again, this is all in the context of a budget that we think is an investment budget, but one that actually does not quite do what I think the hon. member is concerned about with respect to fiscal policy. I think he would know if he looked more deeply into the charts in the budget that the budget will, over a three-year period, balance operating spending with revenues and make sure that the capital investments are the ones that we are borrowing funds to make. He would also be aware that it is capital investments that are the pro-economic investments that unleash all kinds of opportunities for people in his riding as well as across the country.

I think the government and the Minister of Industry have been very attentive to the specific needs and concerns in southern Ontario, and we are very active and involved in both securing investment and protecting the jobs that do exist there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hear the words “investment, investment, investment” over and over. What I do not hear is the more honest framing of “spending, spending, spending”. If we want to get private sector investment in this country, and certainly in my region, we need the government to abandon the industrial carbon tax and to reduce costly and burdensome regulations. We need the government to admit that it has been killing jobs over the last 10 years by suffocating companies.

We do not attract private sector investment by ballooning and bloating the size of government, which is precisely what this budget is going to do. The Liberals can try to use whatever tricky words they would like, but at the end of the day, this is a budget that is going to create $320 billion more debt over the next five years, which future generations of Canadians will be forced to bear.

Why is there no path to genuinely balancing the budget, and why are we not able to see what Canadians are going to be getting for this money that is mortgaging the future generations?

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House now for just over six months, and I am still waiting to hear about the positive action that the party opposite wants to take on fighting climate change. I have not yet heard it. I have heard only the negative propositions.

I think that someone who is concerned about investment, investment trajectories and securing more private sector investment knows that it is very important to have policy certainty and policy predictability. We on the industry committee of Parliament have been studying some of these questions.

To have an investment tax regime that is actually four percentage points lower than comparable rates in the United States on average, to have some policies in place that provide certainty around carbon pricing for industry, and to have policies in place that show that we have EI supports, training supports and a series of investment tax credits that support that kind of investment is the kind of investment and the kind of budgetary approach that Canadians are looking for.

International Trade

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would just like to put this on the public record: I want to wish my wife a happy anniversary. Last week, on November 10, we celebrated 18 years of being married. I thank her for putting up with me for 18 years and for being by my side throughout this political journey. It has been quite the ride.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the members across the way and my colleagues here as well; I appreciate that.

I also just want to give a quick shout-out to the Saskatchewan Roughriders for winning the Grey Cup championship. Obviously, it is a long season with lots of games. It is a gruelling schedule, but they are the ones who came out on top through hard work and great teamwork, so I congratulate the Saskatchewan Roughriders.

I was asking a question of the government about China's tariffs on Canadian canola and on our pulse crops. I also had a follow-up question another time around what is happening with India putting tariffs on us. It is specifically our yellow pea crops they are putting tariffs on now. China has 100% tariffs on that particular crop; India now has a 30% tariff on that crop as well.

I just wanted to work through some of the numbers here. I was reading an article in The Western Producer, and when we look at the cash price for peas, it has dropped by about $15 to $20 per tonne since the announcement of the tariffs by India.

Let us just look at some of the numbers. In week 12 of the crop year, the exports for peas were 55,500 tonnes. If we do the math on that, at $15 a tonne, that works out to $825,000 that Canadian farmers, particularly Saskatchewan farmers, lost in that price. If it is $20 a tonne, that goes all the way up to $1.1 million for just one week. That is the kind of loss that farmers are dealing with in the tariffs from India.

Given the total exports in one year, for this year, so far, it is 817,400 tonnes. Let us do the math on that. At $20 a tonne, that would be $16.3 million that farmers are losing out on. At $15 a tonne, that is $12.2 million that they are losing out on because of the tariffs that have been put on by India. I will let the government do the math on what that means for the impact of the tariffs from China.

The Prime Minister said he was the man for a crisis; so far, when we have seen the Prime Minister leave Canada and go out on trips to talk to other countries about trade, we are seeing worse deals or we are seeing no deals happen. He said he met with folks from China, and they said maybe in the new year they will get to dealing with that. Farmers do not have the luxury of time that the Prime Minister is operating on; they need a deal to be done and dealt with now. Harvest is over. The crop is in the bins. Time is not on farmers' side.

I just gave a brief example of the impact on cash flow it is having for Canadian farmers. If the government continues to sit and wait on this, there is going to be further devastation for farmers. We will see that price continue to go down.

We see the agriculture minister not taking it seriously. The Prime Minister has been ineffective in trying to get better deals or even trying to fix the problems that have been created around the world by other governments.

We know that these tariffs are in relation to other things the government has been doing. The Prime Minister needs to put his best foot forward. He needs to get these tariffs removed from China now. He needs to go to India or have somebody go to India and tell them why they need to be taking the tariffs off, so Canadian farmers and exporters can have access to that market once again. Let them know this is the best crop in the world; Saskatchewan farmers do it the best. The government should be working for farmers, not against them.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley for his submission this evening. I see he is basking in the glow of his 18th wedding anniversary and the Grey Cup victory of his favourite team, so that is a good thing.

The issue the member raises is an extremely serious one. The agricultural sector is critically important for feeding not only the country but the entire world and doing so in a sustainable way. It is also a key driver of Canada's economy, contributing significantly to our GDP, jobs and exports. That includes, of course, the world-class canola and pulse producers in Saskatchewan, who lead the nation in the production of these crops.

We know they are facing tremendous uncertainty with the punitive tariffs on their world-class products, and the hon. member pointed to some very specific examples and calculations. The budget that was just adopted by this House has committed more than $639 million over five years for the following measures.

There is $109.2 million in 2025-26 for the AgriStability program to help farmers cope with large declines in income due to increased costs, market disruptions and other challenges, by increasing the compensation rate to farmers from 80% to 90% and raising the payment cap per farm from $3 million to $6 million. That was in the budget.

There is $75 million over five years for the AgriMarketing program to enhance the diversification and promotion of Canada's agriculture and agri-food products, including canola and pulses, into new markets. That was in the budget.

There is $97.5 million over two years to increase the advance payments program's interest-free limit to $500,000 for canola advances for the 2025 and 2026 program years, resulting in interest savings for producers and increased access to cash flow to help cover costs until they sell their products. That was in the budget.

There is $372 million over two years to establish a biofuels production incentive to support the stability and resilience of domestic producers of biodiesel and renewable diesel.

Taken together, these investments will support Canadian canola and pulse producers as we work around the clock to restore an even playing field with our largest customer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I saw the announcement on the funds that were being allocated. As the member will most likely know, AgriStability is actually a cost-shared program with the provincial governments. It is nice for the Liberals to say they have upped it from 80% to 90% and increased the threshold from $3 million to $6 million, but can the member confirm here today that the provincial governments are in favour of that? Have the provincial governments signed on to do it? Will they be able to uphold the financial commitment on their end?

I have talked to a lot of producers, and they say that AgriStability does not trigger for them. AgriStability is not going to help them deal with lost market access. There is some money set aside for marketing, as I said, but that does not change the fact that China has 100% tariffs and India has 30% tariffs, and that we are seeing other non-trade barriers across the globe that the government has done nothing to get rid of.

Have the provinces confirmed that they are in support of these measures and have the money to back them? Will the government commit today to trying to get the tariffs repealed as soon as possible?

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that Saskatchewan farmers are absolutely a priority for this government. That has been demonstrated by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food, who has met with canola producers on several occasions, including with the Prime Minister.

The Minister of Agriculture recently travelled to China to meet face to face with senior officials. They agreed to restart the technical working groups, which is a critical step, with respect to regulatory barriers. On the heels of the Prime Minister's successful visit with President Xi, we are committed to keeping the conversation going and are looking for ways to support our hard-working canola and pulse producers.

We will always stand shoulder to shoulder with our farmers. We are there for producers and we will continue to be there for them.

Finance

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of chatting about family, I will say that I was elected almost 20 years ago. My kids were 10 and six years old at the time I was elected. It has been a long time. A couple of weeks ago, my son celebrated his 30th birthday. I have talked about Jaden a lot in this place. My daughter, in a couple of weeks, is getting married. Time flies. There is a little bit of applause for our families back home.

What caused me to get involved in politics was a concern for Canada's economic or fiscal situation back then. Of course in the mid-2000s, there was the sponsorship scandal we were facing, but if we go back a little in time, there is a history lesson that I think is really important, which happened under a Liberal government.

After the budget, just recently, Fitch Ratings came out with a statement: “Canada’s...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances.” It went on to say, “persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.”

This has happened before, under a Liberal government. A generation earlier, under Trudeau the first, Liberal governments ran deficits in 14 out of 15 straight years. Fast-forward to the Mulroney era. A lot of Liberals on the other side like to point to the deficits of the Mulroney era, but I think it is very instructive in this conversation that the deficits of the Mulroney era were entirely interest on Trudeau's debt, the debt that Pierre Trudeau had run up over 14 out of 15 years. It was a crushing amount, and the interest costs alone created some of the biggest deficits in Canadian history.

In 1994, the Liberal government put forward a budget that did not go nearly far enough, and the ratings agencies and other financial experts were highly critical of that budget, to the point where, in the subsequent budget in 1995, the Liberal government of the day, the Chrétien-Martin government, had to cut 32% over two years from the health transfer and the social transfer; it was one transfer to the provinces back then that went to health, social services and education. We can imagine the ripple effect this had across the country.

We are going through a time like that now. We have just come out of Trudeau the second. We have come out of 10 straight deficits in 10 years under Justin Trudeau's government.

The current government came in and said it would be different. It called itself a new government, yet although the current Prime Minister promised he would get spending under control, the deficit in the most recent budget is infinitely higher and is substantially higher than what he promised in the election just six short months ago.

I am hoping that the hon. member across the way, the hon. parliamentary secretary, will stand up and explain to Canadians his concern for the future of all the valuable social programs here in Canada.

[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, I congratulate the hon. member on watching his children grow. I too have children, both born and unborn. My wife is about to give birth in January to the latest addition to our family, a girl who I am very proud to say will be my third girl. I am very proud to work in the House on behalf of my family and to see the nation's resources stewarded for future generations.

I realize the member opposite probably takes a different view than I do, but let us just review for a second what the former parliamentary budget officer, in fact the first one, Kevin Page, said recently: “In the current economic environment, I'm comfortable with budgetary deficits in the 2.5 per cent range of GDP. Our economy is weak, and we're operating well below Canada's potential growth rate.” He also said recently, “We need to deploy significant resources to strengthen Canada's political and economic sovereignty.... We need investment to diversify and boost growth. We need to increase our defence capabilities.” Those are exactly the statements I would point out to say that our government is stewarding the nation's resources responsibly.

In order to get through the difficult times we are in, we need to invest in our country. Confident countries invest in themselves. This is a profound time of change, and it is a time to build. It is not a time to backtrack and cower at the challenges ahead; it is a time to invest. We need to reimagine our trading relationships and supply chains, protect and transform our strategic industries, invest in major projects to build a stronger economy and show that we believe in ourselves. I think having confidence in ourselves is key.

To do this, we need to re-evaluate, but also make significant adjustments. That is why we are changing how government works and spending less on government operations. It is so we can invest more in Canada's future, creating high-paying careers, building our country and, of course, growing our economy.

As part of that process, we recognize the government itself can become more productive. We will do this by rightsizing the public service and returning to more sustainable levels in the public service, pre-COVID levels; reducing red tape; eliminating wasteful spending; and adopting new and emerging technologies. Of course, artificial intelligence is something we all recognize has great potential for achieving productivity. By doing all this, we will refocus on results and better allocate scarce taxpayer dollars to catalyze private investment and grow a stronger, more resilient Canadian economy.

Our ambitious plan is to save dollars on the one hand while creating fiscal space. The head of the IMF has said that Canada has acted decisively and that we need to invest that extra fiscal space in capital investments that can help grow our industries and economy.

We have done all of this without compromising social programs and federal benefits, including the Canada child benefit, dental care, the disability benefit, child care, pharmacare and many others. This is good news for Canadians. It is a responsible approach, and I firmly believe that our credit rating, being the best in the world at a AAA rating, will be reaffirmed by the two credit rating agencies, Moody's and S&P Global.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Leduc—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member led off his comments by quoting a former PBO, somehow in defence of the government, saying, “Our economy is weak”. If the Liberals have a confidence problem, just about the worst advice that I can imagine is to spend their way out of it. They call it investment, but it is really just spending.

Here is what happened in February 1994 according to a Reuters summary:

The...Liberal government brings down what it considers to be a tough budget.... It nonetheless still has spending rising slightly, and immediate public and market reaction is it did not go nearly far enough....

January 1995—A biting editorial in the Wall Street Journal headlined “Bankrupt Canada” calls Canada “an honorary member of the Third World”....

The next month, the Liberal government was forced to make the most vicious cuts to health care and social programs in Canadian history.

We are on that same path. What does the hon. member suggest we do about it?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we invest in our economy and grow it so we have the revenues to pay down the deficit we have. That is exactly the fiscal anchor we have talked about: a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio, ensuring disciplined fiscal management for future generations.

The Prime Minister recently said that the future benefits those who are able to be bold in times of crisis. We are being bold. We are investing in the future of our country to create jobs, build infrastructure and build defence capabilities.

I know the member opposite has stood in the House with his colleagues asking for productivity to boost investments in this country. We have offered significant deductions to businesses so they can invest in themselves and increase their productivity. That is the only way to make life more affordable. It will increase real wages compared to the cost of living over time, which is exactly what we are focused on. I do not know how the member opposite cannot recognize that.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7:32 p.m.)