Debates of Nov. 17th, 2025

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately the Conservatives never had that sort of a principle when they were actually in government.

Talking about disinformation, I will use this as an example. The speaker who spoke before the member made reference to my using the example of Japan with respect to deficits. I referred to G7 countries like Japan, the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and I talked about Canada's deficit-to-GDP ratio. I reflected also on the overall debt. We are doing outstandingly well. We are number one in one category and number two in another category.

If we reflect on Stephen Harper and when the member's current leader sat in Harper's Conservative caucus, and if we look at real dollars, the deficit then was higher than it is today.

I wonder if the member would not recognize that the false argument the Conservatives are putting forward to justify their desire for an election is just that, just one of the many things they continuously mislead Canadians about.

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for giving me the opportunity to point out something that needs to be raised in this House, and that is how bad the deterioration of the fiscal situation has become in this country.

The truth is, and I believe my hon. colleague will know this, that Canada's federation is structured differently than other countries in the G7. We hold massive amounts of what is called “sub-sovereign debt” in our provinces. Historically speaking, the federal government has backstopped those provinces if necessary. Looking at total government debt, according to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF, Canada is the seventh most indebted country in the entire world. We are right up there with Italy and France. We are right up there with the United States, but it has the world's reserve currency, so it has a slightly different set of circumstances to deal with.

If the government truly thinks that sub-sovereign debt should not matter in that calculation, as it does in all the international metrics, then it should get up and declare publicly that it is not willing to support or back any provincial governments that may run into problems down the road. Barring that, we need to start looking at total government debt in this—

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

We have to go to other questions.

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for the eloquent answer he just gave.

I want to go back to the issue of the deficit announced in the budget, which is $78 billion this year. The government is saying that this includes so much investment that it is no longer calculating the deficit the way it did in the past. When we look at the details, we see, for example, the Parliamentary Budget Officer saying that “the Government's definition of capital investments is overly expansive”. He even suggests that this subjective definition be reviewed by independent experts. With that method, the Trudeau government's deficits were much smaller.

What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that?

[Aaron Gunn, Conservative, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very good point, which is the fact that what the government is trying to do, and we have seen it happen in corporate Canada before, is move money around into different pots and try to mask the top figure, which is the massive amount of new debt.

What matters is that the government is planning to borrow $321 billion over the next five years and put that money on the back of future generations to pay for. If the government moves money around, it does not matter whether it is put into Crown corporations or whether it is called an investment. When a creditor is lending money, they do not care if the money was borrowed to buy submarines that are going to last 50 years or to pay schoolteachers today. Debt is debt. It all comes with interest. It all affects the carrying capacity of our country.

We need to cut through the spin and look at the bottom line of how much the government is borrowing and how that compares to previous generations. As I pointed out, the government has more than doubled our national debt. It is time to get back to fiscal sanity and fiscal responsibility in this country.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to the budget. For months in the House, we have heard from the Liberals, one after another, telling us that we were going to be presented with a generational, if not transformative, budget for this year, 2025. Of course, we were waiting with bated breath to listen to the budget, which is not fooling anybody.

This is not a budget; a budget is done before the money is spent. However, the current budget is the most expensive in Canadian history outside the pandemic. The fiscal year, as Canadians know, begins April 1 for the Government of Canada. The budget calls for $586 billion in spending, which is the most expensive, as I said, in Canadian history outside the pandemic, but here is the thing: Seven months have already transpired; seven months of what is in the budget has already been spent. Using simple division, with seven of the 12 months, the Liberals have already spent $343 billion.

Now the Liberals have brought this 406-page omnibus budget bill into Parliament, saying, “Hey, here's what we're going to do. Vote with us.” They do not care about what our vote is going to be. They have no respect for Parliament or the process of this place. They do not care for the house of democracy. They do not care to listen to debate. If they did, they would have presented the budget when they were elected, not wait seven months, take the summer off, go on vacation, perhaps do a little bit of golfing, travel to Europe and come back. They did not even present in September or October. On November 4, they said, “Here's a budget, and we've already spent seven months of it. If you guys don't vote for it, oops, you may want an election.”

Well, I have news for them: Canadians are not buying it. No matter how many times the finance minister stands up in the House and says that he has good news for Canadians, Canadians know that with the government, it is nothing but bad news; we know that for sure.

This year, the budget is calling for an $80-billion deficit, which is spending $80 billion more than we take in. Every Canadian family and every Canadian business knows that if we spend more than we take in, it is a formula for bankruptcy. It never bodes well. However, it gets worse; it gets a lot worse. Over the next five years, a staggering $324 billion will be added to our national debt, which is on top of the roughly $1.4 trillion Canada is still in debt for today.

Here is the problem with that: When we borrow money, we have to pay interest on that money. This year, lo and behold, the Liberal government opposite with a so-called economist brainiac Prime Minister is offering Canadians a staggering debt of almost $60 billion in interest payments, which is more than we spend on health care in this country. Today, Canadians walking into an emergency department of a hospital have to wait hours and hours to get service, and when they get that service, quite often they are put in the hallway of the hospital for days, waiting for service. However, the government has nothing in the budget that increases any previous commitment on health care. Nevertheless, there is a lot in the budget that will increase the cost of interest that Canadians will pay.

Everybody in the House, as well as all Canadians, knows that the government has no source of income other than the Canadian taxpayer. Who is going to pay for all of this? Hard-working Canadians are going to pay for the bill that they keep adding and adding to. It is a staggering number: $60 billion in interest alone.

Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. They walk into the grocery store, and the prices keep going up. I have met seniors and young people who are saying they have to eat less. I have told the story in the House about a lady in my riding, who, when I knocked on her door during the election, said, “Sir, I'm not into politics, but I'm on a fixed income and I have to eat less because the prices are so high and I want to keep living in my home.”

I was looking in the budget for some kind of relief for our seniors, but what did I find? I found the words “industrial carbon” tax. The industrial carbon tax adds costs to farmers for their equipment and for their manufacturing processes. For trucking companies, this adds cost to the freight. What do the Liberals think happens when they keep adding these costs?

Liberals will stand and say that this is imaginary and that they are not taxing food. What do they think happens to the manufacturers, the producers and the truckers, who deliver the food that people consume to the grocery store, when they increase the costs by imposing this industrial carbon tax, which is programmed to increase in the budget? What happens is very simple, which is that they will add that cost to the cost of their product. This eventually ends up added to the price of the food items we walk into grocery stores to purchase. In effect, the Liberals are raising food costs at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet.

Speaking of struggling to make ends meet, members may have heard us say in this House repeatedly that food banks have told us a record 2.2 million Canadians are now visiting food banks on a daily basis, with one-third being children. That is over 700,000 children a month. In fact, to put things into perspective, today, while the Liberals are here asking for a free credit card, a free line of credit on money they have already spent seven-twelfths of, 24,000 hungry children will walk into a food bank hoping to find an item they can consume, because they are hungry.

I say shame on the Liberals and shame on the government for not considering the impact of its actions with the budget and continuing to increase costs by imposing such things as the carbon tax and the fuel standard tax on the manufacturers and the people who deliver goods. Children do not have enough food to eat, and this is making it even harder for their families to buy food to put on the table so that they do not go to school hungry. That is shameless.

It is shameful, but the Liberals feel no shame for that at all. In fact, I have heard Liberal after Liberal get up in the House and tout the budget as being generational. We all know the only thing the budget is doing is indebting our children. The Liberals are right: It is generational in the sense that it is adding generational debt to our children moving forward.

Speaking of children, let us talk about youth. Youth unemployment is hovering around 20% in the greater Toronto area. Why is it hovering at that level? In large part, it is because of the actions of the Liberal government over the last 10 years. I have heard people stand on the other side and talk about Stephen Harper. Guess what. Mr. Harper, who was an outstanding prime minister, has not been here for 10 years. I notice the Liberals conveniently forget the 10 years they stood up in the House and spoke vociferously in support of Prime Minister Trudeau and all the additional debt he put on this country and the mess he created in pretty much every file, including, of course, immigration.

Speaking of immigration, we have international students and temporary foreign workers, all of whom are taking jobs our youth could take today. In closing, in the minute I have left, I will say that the Liberals continue down this path of bringing folks into this country who take jobs away from our children, and down the path of imposing costs on Canadians that do not need to be there. They stand up in the House and manoeuvre back and forth, and the worst thing of all is that the Liberal Party is the only party in this House that has uttered the word “election”.

God forbid that we do not want to put $324 billion of additional debt on our children; the Liberals say it is because we want an election. They are out of touch with Canadians. They do not know what people are dealing with. I myself would argue vociferously that a government has a responsibility to produce a document and spend the finances of this country in a way that benefits the Canadian people, Canadian families and Canadian businesses.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am surprised to hear my colleague remind us how much the Conservatives like to talk about Mr. Trudeau even though he is no longer here. They seem to be missing him in the House today.

We have a new Canadian government that is presenting a new budget, which includes economic measures to help Canada's communities grow. This budget proposes significant investments in the military. As a G7 country, Canada must have an effective military and defence system. This will create many job opportunities across the country.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the investments we are making in the Canadian army.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member is sad that I mentioned the name Trudeau. Whether he likes it or not, he is part of that party. He thinks this is a new government, but it does not take a genius to look at the front bench and see the musical chairs the Liberals played, with ministers being in different positions. It is obvious. The Minister of Finance today was the former minister of industry. I look back and forth, and what they have done is played musical chairs with the front bench.

Shame on them. We are talking about producing something, a budget, that will address the needs of Canadians. Playing politics on that is shameful on behalf of that party and the Liberal government.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very interesting speech.

The budget is an important step. There has been a lot of talk about all the things that are missing from the budget, including investments in health care, transfers to the provinces in different areas, and investments to address the housing crisis. These points have been raised with good reason. However, one thing that has not yet been discussed in relation to the budget is justice. This is of particular concern to me, since I am the justice critic in Parliament. I see major problems. I saw nothing in the budget about justice.

Will funds be allocated to appoint judges? Will there be transfers to the provinces, prevention programs, and help for victims? There are all kinds of justice-related issues that are not addressed in this budget, and that worries me.

I would like my colleague to speak to this.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is right. There is precious little in this budget that deals with the actual problem we have with housing, with health care and with employment. On the justice issue, I live in a community where in the last 60 days we have had two murders on the quiet streets of Richmond Hill. I was also looking in the budget to see if we got some kind of relief, focus or attention regarding how our justice system runs in this country, but unfortunately it is not in there. This is a document full of rhetoric that does not respond to that.

The issue of immigration is a big problem in this country, but on page 311, which scantily addresses the issue, the top line says the Liberals are going to reduce the resources for immigration, because they are going to be imposing a 15% cut on the department. This is ridiculous.

The government has missed the boat and continues to miss the boat on what really is affecting Canadians today.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague worked in business. I would like to get his understanding of this: If a business were to be run in a way that adds $10 million in debt every hour, as the government is set to do with this inflationary budget, how long would it be able to stay in business?

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a formula for bankruptcy. That is what this is, but the government does not seem to care. It just passes on the debt to our children, to future generations and to our seniors, who cannot afford to eat. Children are walking into food banks hungry. The Liberals are very good at heckling, but the bottom line is this: Canadian families are suffering, and 24,000 children are walking into a food bank hungry today.

This is a good question. A business goes bankrupt if it spends more than it earns. That is business 101. That is a lesson the Liberal Party and the Liberal government have never learned, and they have shown no indication that they have the capacity to learn it.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to bring the voices of Chatham-Kent—Leamington to this chamber.

Today, I rise to speak to the federal budget that was tabled on October 35. I realize there is no such date in our calendar, but perhaps there is one in the Liberal calendar, where deadlines are flexible and keeping promises is optional.

I was looking for one thing in this budget: hope. I was looking forward to the banker this country elected bringing sound fiscal management to government finances, which would in turn lead to affordable living for Canadians. However, once again, the Liberal government's budget is not affordable. It is late, but Canadians cannot afford to wait, because every month of delay means higher bills, higher grocery prices and higher costs for families already struggling to get by due to the government debt incurred by the Liberals' overspending. It is confirmed, on page 245 of the budget, that the government is projecting public debt charges will amount to $55.6 billion in 2025-26. This is going to grow to $76.1 billion in four years.

The Prime Minister's accounting tricks are apparent to me and anyone who has been in the position of operating a business before. Business owners know the difference between capital and operating debt and that both incur interest charges. We also know the difference between investing and spending.

This past Friday, November 14, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the PBO, tabled his report on the 2025 budget. It is clear that the government has blurred the line between capital and operating spending for political convenience. In fact, to quote the PBO, “PBO maintains its view that the Government's definition of capital investments is overly expansive.” Based on the PBO's definition, capital investments would actually be approximately 30%, or $94 billion, lower compared to what budget 2025 has to say. Because to this, the PBO warns, “Given the subjectivity involved in defining federal capital investments and their role in guiding fiscal policy decisions...the PBO recommends that the Government establish an independent expert body to determine which federal spending categories and measures qualify as capital investment”.

When an independent budget officer has to recommend the implementation of an independent referee because the government keeps moving the goalposts, it is a sign of serious fiscal credibility problems. Canadians in charge of a business or household know that they must work within their means and operate with a fiscal anchor. The PBO has clearly stated that the government has abandoned its previous fiscal anchor, which was to reduce the federal debt-to-GDP ratio, a commitment made during the 2024 fall economic statement. It was a key metric “not only for fiscal sustainability, but also to preserve Canada's AAA credit rating, which helps maintain investors' confidence and keeps Canada's borrowing costs as low as possible.”

Now the Liberals have put Canada's international credit rating in jeopardy. When the government spends more than it brings in, it borrows money in our names. The federal debt now carries over $55 billion a year in interest payments alone. That is more than we transfer to the provinces in health care, at $54.7 billion, and more than the government receives in GST revenue, at $54.3 billion. These are big numbers.

What does that mean to us? Each month, households across this country are effectively sending $421 to Ottawa per month, over $5,000 per year, in either today's or tomorrow's taxes, not for defence, hospitals or other social programs, but just to cover the interest on federal borrowing. Imagine people doing that for their own households, paying down someone else's credit card while their grocery bills keep climbing. That is the weight of overspending. The Liberal government's deficits have found their way back to Canadians' kitchen tables through inflation, higher prices and higher taxes.

Inflation is the cruellest tax of all, in that no one Canadian ever voted for it. When everything costs more, their paycheques buy less. If one could spend oneself into economic prosperity, Canada would be the most prosperous nation on this earth, with no one standing in line at a food bank, but after 10 years and a doubling of our nation's debt, we have more than doubled our food bank lines.

What is this supposed new government's plan? It is more spending and a doubling down on deficits. How long do the food bank lines have to become?

History has told us the same story every time. When governments overspend, inflation follows, and food inflation is the clearest example. According to Value Chain Management International's report on food inflation in Canada, released on October 16 of this year, the average retail food basket in Canada rose by 34% between 2019 and 2025. That means food prices have risen nearly twice as fast as everything else, hitting families where it hurts the most: at the dinner table.

In June of this past year, Abacus Data highlighted the growing financial strain felt by Canadians, as 61% said they lacked confidence in their ability to afford groceries six months from now. That report came out five months ago, yet these concerns are here with us today. Furthermore, Dr. Sylvain Charlebois told the agriculture committee this past month that Canada is the only G7 country that has seen four consecutive months of food inflation increases and that Canadians may have to deal with more bad news on the price of food in 2026.

Inflation does not just empty wallets; it erodes dignity, and it always hurts those at the lower socio-economic levels far more than those with assets. Wages never rise as fast as costs do during periods of high inflation, so when Ottawa spends without restraint, it piles costs onto Canadians through higher prices, higher taxes and fewer opportunities. Because of that, the social programs that Canadians rely on and value so much are put at risk. When interest payments eat up more of the budget than our core services do, it is, again, Canadians who lose out. As the saying goes, every dollar the government spends is a dollar from our pockets. There is no such thing as government money; it is only the people's money.

I know, and I can hear it already, that the Liberals are going to accuse me and accuse Conservatives of not supporting Canadians simply because we critiqued the budget. I expect to be asked why I do not support this program or why I do not support that program, but governments, like families, have to make choices. A family who loves their children might want to send them to hockey, dance, baseball, taekwondo or, of course, music lessons, but if they try to do everything, they cannot pay off the credit card at month's end. That does not mean any of those things I listed are bad; it means they cannot afford them all right now. If they ignore that reality, the debt grows and so does the burden on Canadians, and that is exactly what the government is doing to our country.

There is hope. Canada can change course. We can build a country of bigger paycheques and lower costs, where work once again pays and families can once again save. We can cut wasteful spending. Where? We can focus government on what matters the most: empowering Canadians themselves and not focusing on increasing government reliance. What we need to do is get the government out of the way.

Even the Value Chain Management International's report calls for a government that becomes a “facilitator of competitiveness” so that food and essentials stay affordable. Let us take that advice. Let us reward those who produce, who build and who seek to rebuild the foundation of an affordable Canada. Let us choose a Canada where food is affordable, work is rewarded and, most importantly, where government lives within its means.

The Conservative Party will put forward amendments to boost take-home pay; deliver affordable homes and food; end hidden taxes, on food in particular; cut waste; open our country to opportunity; and clear away the bureaucracy that stands in the way of building the homes Canadians so desperately need. The responsibility now lies with the government. If this budget is to pass, the Liberals must work with the opposition and the Conservatives to ensure that it reflects the hard work of Canadians and the sacrifices they have already made, not ask our youth to sacrifice even more. If the Liberals ignore the practical solutions we bring forward and push forward a budget that leaves Canadians behind, then any election called as a result of this would not be the fault of the Conservatives or the opposition. It would be the consequence of a government unwilling to listen, unwilling to act responsibly and unwilling to provide a better future for Canadians.

It is time for the government to work with the opposition, listen to the amendments we propose and deliver a budget that truly serves Canadians. The choice is the Liberals': to collaborate for the good of Canadians or to bear the responsibility—

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

We are out of time.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

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

Madam Speaker, the member wants it to be very clear.

Let us be very clear that, if there is an election, it will be because the Conservative Party has put their political interests ahead of Canadians' interests. That is what would precipitate an actual election.

The member talks about children and affordability. Every member of the Liberal caucus is concerned about the issue of affordability. That is the reason we brought in a tax break for 22 million Canadians. That is why we have a Prime Minister who has made the national school food program permanent to support our children. That is the reason we are investing in Canadians and investing in our infrastructure.

The member has a choice. We can either invest in Canadians or we can do nothing. It seems that the Conservatives are proposing to do nothing and wanting to have an election.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North has again illustrated that math is not the government's strong suit.

The last time I checked, the Liberals are not a majority in the House. They have not shown any willingness to work with the opposition, none at all. As I said in my speech, they need to make the hard decisions, prioritize and not add further debt for ourselves now, for our children and for our children's children. That means hard choices. It absolutely does.

However, that is the responsible thing to do, rather than pile on debt. Over and over again, the Liberals are expecting a different result from the same manner of acting. Inflation always follows this massive overspending, and it is going to come again. It will lead to higher interest rates, exacerbate our housing crisis and exacerbate our food prices.

Are math and balance really too much to ask for?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, no matter what the Liberals may say, this budget makes cuts to health care. It is clear even just looking at transfers. The escalator is going to drop from 6% to 3%, while system costs are 6%.

Meanwhile, the Liberals are boasting. They are boasting that they are investing $5 billion in health care infrastructure to build hospitals, when in fact they are doing so over three years, and Quebec is set to receive only about $300 million. What is more, while the system is getting poorer and poorer because the escalator is not indexed to system costs, Ottawa is saying that Quebec will have to kick in $300 million itself.

Considering that the expansion of the Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital is going to cost between $4 billion and $6 billion, this investment, which is for all projects from coast to coast to coast, is just a drop in the bucket. It is a drop in the bucket. Does my colleague not agree with me that the Liberals are wrong to boast and that this is misrepresentation?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are certain things that the Liberals are spending more and more on, with higher rates of inflation, and things that they are committing to less and less.

The point that I want to highlight is actually a point that was brought up by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Irrespective of the numbers that the government put in the budget, he is saying that there is about a 7.5% likelihood that they are going to hit them. That makes it a 92.5% likelihood that they are going to miss him. The 3% on health might only be 2% or 1% because of all the other spending. Certainly our debt, and not only the debt but also the cost of servicing that debt, is growing much faster.

The Liberals can spend more when they choose to, but it is not on the social programs we rely on because we are having to commit so much of our funding to servicing our debt.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a narrative we have been hearing from the Liberals today, which is that the budget they have put forward should just be blindly accepted by all opposition parties, and that if we do not go along with this reckless budget, an election is on our hands.

Interestingly, with a member as loquacious as my colleague from Winnipeg North, we can always find something he has said in the chamber. Back when there was a Conservative minority government, he sang a very different tune. All of his messages, and I found about a dozen of them, were about how the government needs to listen to opposition parties.

My question to my colleague from the neighbouring riding of Chatham-Kent—Leamington is, when did it become the obligation of opposition parties to find support for government legislation?

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it became the obligation in the mind of the government after the last election. The member is absolutely right. It is the role of government to seek to maintain its own survival by working with the opposition. If they choose not to—

Parliamentary Budget Officer

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising from the troubling notice published by the Parliamentary Budget Officer on Thursday afternoon. In letters to the Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and their counterparts in the Senate, Jason Jacques wrote to provide notice, under section 79.42 of the Parliament of Canada Act, that he is of the opinion he has “not been provided with free and timely access to information requested under section 79.4 of the Act.”

Under the latter provision, subsection 79.4(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act reads:

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is entitled, by request made to the head of a department or of a parent Crown corporation, to free and timely access to any information under the control of the department or parent Crown corporation that is required for the performance of his or her mandate.

Specifically, Mr. Jacques has indicated that he has been stonewalled in respect to requests about budget measures, specifically the so-called comprehensive expenditure review, addressed to five ministers of the Crown, namely the Minister of Fisheries, Minister of Health, Minister of Public Safety, Minister of Justice and the Minister of Industry. I will note, on October 30 in the operations committee, when questioned on this, the President of the Treasury Board stated he would provide the information to the PBO. Again, he has not done so.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is mandated by Parliament to, among other things, analyze budgets tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance. In the course of doing just that for the budget tabled on November 4, he wrote to the minister specifically requesting information concerning “the savings of the CER [the comprehensive expenditure review] by program, planned personnel reductions, and details of potential service level impacts of the years 2026-27 to 2029-30”.

On behalf of the ministers, the Comptroller General of Canada answered that the information will not be provided within the timelines required by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Again, I go back to October 30 in the operations committee when the President of the Treasury Board assured the committee that information would be provided. It remains to be seen if the information will ever be shared with Mr. Jacques, especially in light of news that the government has launched a job posting for a new Parliamentary Budget Officer, but I digress.

Mr. Jacques' letter explained the importance of this information being provided in a timely manner. He says:

The [comprehensive expenditure review's] proposed cuts of $60 billion over the next five years are an important aspect of the Government's economic and fiscal plan outlined in Budget 2025. Given that parliamentarians will be asked to vote on this plan next week [tonight, in fact], I am seeking your support to compel the Comptroller General of Canada to release the necessary information without delay. Timely disclosure is essential to ensure parliamentarians can engage in a fully informed debate on these significant measures. To meet this objective, I kindly request your response to this letter at your earliest convenience.

Parliamentarians need this information, and we need it now. Provision of the Parliament of Canada Act, which the Parliamentary Budget Officer relies upon to seek information from the government, largely mirrors a similar authority the Auditor General enjoys under subsection 13(1) of the Auditor General Act. Similar to section 79.42 of the Parliament of Canada Act, which triggered Mr. Jacques's letter to the two Speakers, the Auditor General is obliged by paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Auditor General Act to report annually to the House of Commons on whether, in carrying on the work of her office, she received all the information and explanations she required.

While the current statutory framework for the Parliamentary Budget Officer's information request was enacted in 2017 as part of the Liberal Budget Implementation Act, which was another omnibus bill, by the way, the Auditor General's parallel authorities, upon which I would argue the PBO's authority was modelled, has something of an established history. In 1982 and 1983, Pierre Trudeau's government denied information to then auditor general Kenneth Dye respecting the takeover of Petrofina by then Crown corporation Petro-Canada. This denial of information went to the courts, going all the way to the highest court in the land.

In the 1989 decision in Canada (Auditor General) v. Canada (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), Chief Justice Dickson, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision, described in pages 98 and 99 the interaction of the two statutory provisions concerning the Auditor General's right to information from the government and duty to report any failures to this House. It states:

The section refers to a duty to report of the Auditor General, but can, in my view, simultaneously be characterized as a reporting remedy....

There must be some purpose for conveying such information to the House of Commons and one must assume that Parliament intended the House of Commons to exercise its judgment as to whether to seek the information its servant had not been able to secure on its behalf.

At page 103, the then chief justice of Canada explained that an Auditor General does not have judicial recourse to secure access to information required, writing:

In this case, it is reasonable to interpret s. 7(1)(b) as the Auditor General's only remedy for claimed denials of s. 13(1) entitlements not only because the text is conducive to such an interpretation but also because, in the circumstances, a political remedy of this nature is an adequate alternative remedy. The Auditor General is acting on Parliament's behalf carrying out a quintessentially Parliamentary function, namely, oversight of executive spending pursuant to Parliamentary appropriations. Where the exercise of this auditing function involves the Auditor General in a dispute with the Crown, this is in essence a dispute between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government. Section 7(1)(b) would seem to be the means by which Parliament itself retains control over the position it wishes to take in such a dispute.

The reason for judgment concludes on page 110 by observing, “Nothing in the foregoing should be taken as prejudicing the right of the House of Commons to deal with a s. 7(1)(b) report as it sees fit.”

In summary, the Supreme Court of Canada has said it has no role in addressing a breach of subsection 13(1) of the Auditor General Act, but it is up to the House to vindicate the powers conferred upon the Auditor General, an officer of Parliament. In turn, I would respectively submit that identical conclusions should be drawn in relation to the Parliamentary Budget Officer and section 79.4 of the Parliament of Canada Act.

That is why I am turning to you on this question of privilege so the House can consider how to address itself in this situation.

Page 122 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, which I am sure the Speaker has memorized, speaks to the right of the House to regulate its own internal affairs. It states, “where the application of statute law relates to a proceeding in Parliament or a matter covered by privilege, it is the House itself which decides how the law is to apply”.

At page 180 of the Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, second edition, offers this insight, stating:

...each House interprets and administers the law of Parliament in order to find breaches of privilege or contempt in appropriate cases, and interprets any statute law setting out procedures to be followed. This is the only part of the general and public law of Canada in which the House has jurisdiction for purposes of interpretation and adjudication. Otherwise, “the Chair is in no position to interpret either the law or the Constitution...”.

To my mind, I believe this question of privilege is the most appropriate means for this proceeding.

Bosc and Gagnon write, at page 59, “The House has the authority to assert privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions”.

At page 60, they add:

Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the House, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an admission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.

More specifically, Maingot writes, at page 240, “Statute laws affecting the House of Commons, such as tabling of documents, may constitute contempt if not adhered to.”

In delivering a ruling about a minister's failure to present documents by a deadline fixed by a statute, Speaker Fraser, on April 19, 1993, at page 18104 of the Debates, associated himself with the opinion that “a statutory provision and statutes are the highest form of command that can be given by this House. In my view the disregard of that legislative command, even if unintentional, is an affront to the authority and dignity of Parliament as a whole and of this House in particular”.

In going on to find a prima facie case of privilege, the Chair explained:

In the present case it is not merely an order of the House that has been violated, but a law duly assented to by the Crown as a constituent part of Parliament. The delegate of the Crown has not met the exigencies of the law of Parliament.

As I have said before, Canada is not an executive democracy nor an administrative democracy, but a parliamentary democracy....

The requirements contained in our rules and statutory laws have been agreed upon by this House and constitute an agreement which I think all of us realize must be respected.

As a 1989 Supreme Court decision observed, “The Auditor General is acting on Parliament's behalf carrying out a...Parliamentary function—namely, the oversight of executive spending pursuant to Parliamentary appropriations.”

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is performing, on our behalf, an equally essential role but at the front end of the financial cycle, providing us with objective, non-partisan analysis of the budget proposals of the executive. If the Parliamentary Budget Officer is denied access to the information he requires to do his job, on the legitimate and reasonably explained timelines he has established, we, as members of the House of Commons, are impeded from carrying out our constitutional duty of holding the government to account.

I will note that, when refusing this information to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the government argued that it could not possibly allow parliamentarians the information to vote on until it was actually voted on and passed by the House.

King Edward I, when calling the model Parliament, was famous for saying that, basically, what is being presented for all should be decided by all. The House should be deciding that. We cannot decide that if the government is hiding the information from us. I would submit that the denial of information requested by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, our officer, is analogous to the committee's request for documents going unanswered.

Bosc and Gagnon explain, on page 138-39:

If a committee’s request that it be given certain documents is met with resistance or disregarded, the committee may adopt a motion ordering the production of the requested documents. If such an order is ignored, the committee has no means to enforce the order on its own. It may report the matter to the House and recommend that appropriate action be taken. It is then a decision of the House whether or not to issue an order for the production of papers. This may be done by the adoption of a motion or by concurring in the committee’s report.

Like a committee, Mr. Jacques has reported his distress. In respect of Parliament's standing statutory order to produce information, the Parliamentary Budget Officer's notice letter indicates an unequivocal call for help: “I am seeking your support to compel the Comptroller General of Canada to release the necessary information without delay.”

However, unlike a committee's report, we do not have the option of a motion to concur in Mr. Jacques's letter. That said, a concurrence motion would not even, in these circumstances, be necessary. Upon receiving a report of the finance committee's distress, on March 9, 2011, page 8840 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken found a prima facie case of privilege in his ruling.

The Chair stated:

...there is no doubt that an order to produce documents is not being fully complied with, and this is a serious matter that goes to the heart of the House's undoubted role in holding the government to account.

For these reasons, the Chair finds that there are sufficient grounds for finding a prima facie question of privilege in this matter.

I understand that the comptroller general responded to the Parliamentary Budget Officer with arguments as to why they cannot answer in a timely way.

I would return to the words of Speaker Milliken, which I agree would be equally applicable in the present context: “It may be that valid reasons exist. That is not for the Chair to judge. A committee empowered to investigate the matter might, but the Chair is ill-equipped to do so.”

Although there is no specific precedent ruling in the House of Commons on this point, Bosc and Gagnon recall for us, at page 81, that the law of contempt of Parliament is “extremely fluid and most valuable for the Commons to be able to meet novel situations.”

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to find a prima facie case of privilege so that the House may discuss the means to which we can best provide the support to the Parliamentary Budget Officer that he seeks. While it is well established that Speakers themselves do not rule on questions of law, the fact that my question of privilege relates to a requirement under an act of Parliament does not mean that it is beyond your purview to render a decision and find a prima facie case of privilege.

The 1993 ruling of Speaker Fraser, which I quoted earlier, concerned a tabling deadline fixed by the customs tariff. More recently, another of your predecessors made rulings concerning provisions of the Canada Elections Act with respect to members' right to sit and vote in the House on June 18, 2013, page 18550 of the Debates; October 17, 2013, page 66 of the Debates; and November 4, 2014, page 9183 of the Debates.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, you can, and I would argue that you should, find a prima facie case here so that the House may address the government's failure to be transparent.

Maingot explains, at page 221, the nature of such a ruling:

A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate....

As Speaker Fraser said in an October 10, 1989, ruling from page 4457 of the Debates, “Normally in cases of doubt, it has been the practice for Speakers to allow an appropriate motion to go forward for a decision of the House.”

Another of your predecessors, Speaker Jerome, on March 21, 1978, at page 521 of the Journals, endorsed these comments, found in a February 1967 report of a Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege in the United Kingdom:

...the question which the Speaker should ask himself, when he has to decide whether to grant precedence over other public business to a motion which a Member who has complained of some act or conduct as constituting a breach of privilege desires to move, should be, not—do I consider that, assuming that the facts are as stated, the act or conduct constitutes a breach of privilege, but could it reasonably be held to be a breach of privilege, or to put it shortly, has the Member an arguable point? If the Speaker feels any doubt on the question, he should, in my view, leave it to the House.

Since the courts determined, after the original Trudeau government stonewalled an auditor general, that they have no jurisdiction, and if you decide there is also no place for the House to intervene in support of our officers of Parliament, then that would render moot the very word of Parliament. It would undermine a core principle of statutory interpretation that Parliament does not speak in vain. That, I would submit, is my arguable point.

Sir John Bourinot, a former clerk of this House, wrote in Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, fourth edition, at page 203, “Each House is bound by every consideration of self-interest and justice to observe strictly its rules and standing orders, and to rebuke every attempt to evade or infringe them.” That is exactly what we are being called upon to do here as well.

If Parliament is to expect the accountability from the government that it prescribes in law, it must stand up for itself and for its officers, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, when the government's efforts fall short.

Should you agree, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention. The Chair will certainly take it under advisement and report back to the House.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Angelo Iacono, Liberal, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

It is with pride and conviction that I rise to express my support for the 2025 federal budget. It is a budget that reflects our Liberal government's vision, priorities and values: building a fairer and more prosperous Canada for all. This budget represents a solid, pragmatic and results-driven plan that is designed to improve the lives of Canadians today while preparing our country for the challenges of tomorrow.

The budget contains bold choices and tough choices, but these choices are necessary in the current global climate to protect our families, our workers, our businesses and our communities, as well as to preserve our dignity and territorial integrity.

The global context remains complex. The international economy is marred by geopolitical tensions, trade disruptions and the lingering impacts of climate change. Although these realities create uncertainty, they also create opportunities, such as the opportunity to rethink our economy, strengthen our industrial sovereignty and invest in what makes Canada strong—our collective know-how, solidarity and talent. In this context, our government made a clear choice to take action, protect purchasing power, stimulate growth and accelerate the transition to a more sustainable economy. This budget shows that it is possible to reconcile fiscal responsibility with social ambition.

We know that the cost of living continues to be a major concern for Canadians. That is why our government continues to support families through targeted measures such as enhanced tax credits, the continuation of the carbon tax rebate for households and increased investments in affordable housing.

The 2025 budget includes tax incentives to speed up the construction of new housing, whether family homes, community homes or affordable rental buildings. We are also making it easier for developers and municipalities to access financing in order to reduce delays and boost construction.

In my riding of Alfred-Pellan, these measures will result in concrete projects: more housing, more construction jobs and genuine relief for families struggling to find housing. Affordable housing is more than an economic need; it is a fundamental right.

Canadian workers are key to our prosperity. Budget 2025 strengthens training and re-skilling programs so that everyone can benefit from the new economy.

We are introducing a refundable tax credit for personal support workers equal to 5% of their eligible income, up to a maximum of $1,100 per year. This measure recognizes the essential role that these professionals play, especially in the lives of our seniors and vulnerable people.

In addition, $97 million will be provided over five years to establish a fund to speed up foreign credential recognition in sectors experiencing labour shortages, like health care and construction. This will allow more skilled newcomers to enter the workforce quickly and contribute to our country's growth and vitality.

Finally, we are expanding the Red Seal training program and supporting innovation in union training to prepare our youth and workers for sustainable, well-paying jobs. These initiatives will help meet the growing demand for labour while strengthening Canadians' competitive and determined position.

Innovation remains central to our government's economic strategy. Budget 2025 modernizes the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, an essential tool for stimulating research and innovation in our businesses.

Eligibility thresholds are raised for small businesses. Certain measures are extended to public companies, and capital expenditures are reintroduced. These changes will encourage applied research, the commercialization of new technologies and the creation of quality jobs in strategic sectors.

We know that Canada's competitiveness also depends on the energy transition. That is why this budget invests in clean technologies, hydrogen, sustainable manufacturing and electric vehicle production.

In September, our government announced targeted regulatory adjustments to help the auto sector stay competitive in the face of U.S. trade disruptions. By eliminating the 2026 target, we are enabling a more realistic and sustainable transition, while supporting auto manufacturers and workers. This is a responsible decision that protects jobs, the environment and Canadian competitiveness. These strategic investments position Canada as a global leader in the fight against climate change, while creating sustainable jobs by stimulating growth in our regions.

Our government recognizes that complex tax rules can be a barrier for Canadians and businesses. That is why budget 2025 introduces targeted adjustments to indirect taxes and the tax treatment of loyalty programs to simplify the system and make it more transparent. These adjustments will encourage consumption, promote investment and enable businesses to better plan for growth. A simpler tax system means more clarity for households and more confidence in our economic institutions.

These adjustments will make life easier for hundreds of thousands of Canadians whose tax situations are not complex. Think of students, like Massimo in my riding, who does not have time to file a tax return, or seniors, like Thérèse and André, whose only income comes from old age security and who struggle to access online services.

In a time of global uncertainty, our government is showing discipline. Every dollar invested is aimed at generating tangible economic benefits and strengthening the resilience of our economy. That is why, in budget 2025, we are reaffirming our commitment to buying Canadian. By supporting Canadian businesses, workers and products, we can maximize the impact of every public investment and support local supply chains.

Our priority is clear: to support the population without compromising the country's financial stability. This balanced approach sets Canada apart on the international stage and strengthens market confidence in our economy.

This budget will have a meaningful impact on our communities. For Alfred-Pellan, the budget means more jobs in construction and innovation, better access to housing and new opportunities for young people and families. Small and medium-sized businesses in Laval will benefit from new tax credits for research and clean production, promoting local investment and the creation of quality jobs. Thanks to Build Canada Homes, these benefits will be felt across the country. Even a single project can generate orders for steel in Hamilton, concrete in Calgary and heavy equipment rentals in Laval. This is proof positive that federal investments support the entire Canadian economic chain, from manufacturers to workers on the ground.

This budget charts a course for an inclusive, innovative and resilient Canada. It supports families, strengthens the middle class and invests in sectors of the future. It embodies our government's deep conviction that when we invest in people, we build lasting prosperity. Every measure, whether training, housing, innovation or the green transition, is designed to give Canadians the tools they need to succeed.

The 2025 federal budget is not just a fiscal plan. It is a vision for the future. It reflects our commitment to building a country where every citizen, every community and every region can thrive. It shows that solidarity, responsibility and innovation are the foundation of Canadian progress. With this budget, our Liberal government is confirming its commitment to building a stronger, fairer and more sustainable Canada.

Together, let us continue to build a future where generations to come can live in prosperity, security and confidence.

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

Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate, my colleague from Montcalm explained that this budget represents a disengagement from health care funding because the health transfer could potentially increase more slowly than the costs of the system. In response, the member for Bourassa, the great intellectual, and the member for Trois‑Rivières, the great diplomat, shouted names at the member for Montcalm, saying that he was wrong. I know that my colleague from Montcalm knows that what he said is true, and he knows what disengagement is: it is when a transfer increases at a slower pace than the costs of the system. We know this because it gets taught in introductory CEGEP courses and university intro to economics courses.

I would like to know whether my colleague from Alfred-Pellan will explain to his colleagues why, technically speaking, this is a disengagement from health care. Does he perhaps think we should freeze the salaries of a couple of Liberal MPs for a couple of years to show them what happens when sums of money are not indexed?