Debates of Nov. 17th, 2025

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech given by my colleague, and he had a lot to say about his riding of Bourassa. He carefully avoided mentioning the people in Bourassa who cannot pay their bills at the end of the month. He avoided mentioning the 600,000 Quebeckers who are lining up at food banks every month because they cannot put enough food on the table to feed their families.

I understand that the member for Bourassa wants to list off the talking points he was given by his Prime Minister and by the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. However, when he chats with people at the grocery store, do they actually want to talk about the state of public finances in G7 countries, or do they tell him about how people are struggling to pay their bills and afford groceries? That is the real question. That is the question the member should be asking himself instead of reciting talking points he has learned by heart.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to point out that I have been in politics for more than eight years and that even my political aides do not write my speeches. These are not talking points from the Prime Minister or cabinet.

Last week, I met several people who only wanted to talk to me about the budget. I would like to thank them for their trust, and I am repeating what they told me at the grocery store. This is a people-oriented budget that takes citizens into account. It is a budget that, above all, responds to challenges related to inflation and housing. We listened to the people, and this is a budget that aims to help them.

I thank my colleague for the question and I want to reiterate that I wrote my speech from the heart. I wrote it myself, drawing inspiration from the comments that I heard from the people of Bourassa.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to explain something to me. For years, the Bloc Québécois has done everything in its power to end the discrimination against people between the ages of 65 and 74. Again this weekend, these people told me that they understand why the Bloc will be voting against the budget: This measure does not appear anywhere in the budget. I could also mention the 6% escalator in health care transfers.

Why was this measure not included in the budget?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for that very good question because it focuses on people who we really listened to in the context of this budget. I would simply like to say that, although that measure is not included in the budget, there are other measures that take seniors into account.

That said, it is really important to understand what we are doing here. Our primary goal is to deal with urgent situations, particularly when it comes to housing. We want to help people with their housing needs. We also want to mitigate the impact of rising grocery prices. All of these measures show that our government is looking to reduce household expenses, particularly for seniors. We have not forgotten them. Believe it or not, our government thought about all of the elements, and we have not forgotten anything. On the contrary, our government is trying to propose a much more systemic budget that takes all of the elements into account to protect everyone's purchasing power.

[Élisabeth Brière, Liberal, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Bourassa has reminded us of the measures we are taking to invest in Canada and Canadians. We are making major investments, such as the sports centre in Montreal North, in the member's riding. We are proving that we are taking action for our country and to build a strong Canada.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on why it is so important to invest and build in the current context.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is a very good question with two different aspects to it. First, why invest now? By investing in infrastructure, we are creating jobs. There are jobs created by the project itself, which is an investment, and future employment opportunities, which are ongoing jobs that can become permanent afterwards.

Second, Bourassa, in Montreal North, is the only borough in Montreal that did not really have access to a sports centre. There are young people like Luguentz Dort, who won the NBA Finals. There are young people who have won robotics medals. There are young people who have done well in various sports, but who did not have the opportunity to have a sports centre. It is important to note that people actually cried with joy when they saw that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance had thought of them and these young people. People actually had tears in their eyes when we announced this wonderful facility, which is a facility of the future, an investment in our young people, an investment in our families and, above all, an investment that will help prevent crime among young people.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time today with the member for Edmonton Northwest.

The budget speaks of a generational shift, but few Canadians would realize how deep this shift runs. For the first time, our nation's infrastructure is not just about steel, concrete and asphalt; it is about code, computation and data. Beneath that shiny language of innovation lies a quiet transformation, one that changes not only how we build, how we measure and how we account but also how we govern. The budget would link the Canada Infrastructure Bank to new investments in artificial intelligence, what is called in the budget a trusted “Canadian AI ecosystem.” Traditionally, the bank financed retrofit water systems, power grids, etc. Now it would finance data centres and AI infrastructure. The budget would give the failed Infrastructure Bank an additional $10 billion, for a total of $45 billion in taxpayer-funded dollars.

There is also a shift in accounting. In the budget, with a deficit of $78 billion, many people wonder how we would be able to pay for all of this. The reality is that the government would redefine the accounting system, primarily by changing the definition of a capital investment. The old system of assets and deficits would no longer exist because the government would move to a fully integrated digital accounting system. In this system, deficits would not matter and the carbon footprint in every transaction could be accounted for in a new transformational ledger. Under the new framework, intangible digital assets, algorithms, data sets and software systems would now be recorded as capital, just as bridges, hospitals and roads once were.

If everything digital can be reclassified as infrastructure, the government can borrow, spend and record it as an investment, even when no tangible assets exist that Canadians can see and use. As the system evolves, it could one day be connected directly to a digital ledger, perhaps even a blockchain, which is a kind of digital accounting system. This points to a future where we ourselves would be reduced to digital assets on a government ledger. In this system, every asset, expenditure and citizen interaction is recorded in real time. Mark my words: This will be how we calculate the GDP in the future.

The new system would also shift from human oversight to algorithmic control. With the budget, the government would essentially change how it keeps the nation's books. In the old system, capital spending meant building something we could see: a bridge and the day-to-day expenses that kept things running. If they spent more than they took in, there was a deficit, plain and simple. Now, more of the government spending could be called capital and put on the other side of the ledger, even when it is for such things as software, research and technology. The government would now be able to spread that cost over many years, so the deficit looks smaller. It is like buying a laptop and calling it an investment instead of a purchase; the numbers look better, but the money is still coming out of the bank.

The new accounting model would also change how we measure the country's wealth. Debt that was once a liability would now be treated as an investment. Intangible assets, such as AI systems, data holdings and even carbon credits would now be listed as capital. That makes the books look stronger and the GDP appear higher even if nothing has been physically built in our country. This shift would turn the economy from measuring what we produce to what we project. This means that when every deficit can be labelled as an asset, accountability is pushed to the future.

We are moving from a world of tangibles to intangibles, one that is traceable. In the tangible world, the ownership was clear and the tangibles were clear. People owned their land, their car and their work. In the traceable world, ownership would be replaced by access. People stream music, lease data and rent rights through a QR code. That is the real generational shift the budget refers to.

This new system, which is built to measure outcomes, will eventually measure us. Every promise of transparency can become a tool of surveillance if not guided by the principles of freedom that we cherish. If everything of value becomes data, then every aspect of our lives can become data to be recorded and monetized. This is why we must be on guard as we see this change towards a new public system, the digital ledger, which is funded to the tune of $1 billion. We need to have safeguards.

Digital infrastructure is not neutral. The same network that tracks investments can track individuals. The same AI that predicts the supply chain can predict personal behaviour. If these systems are not governed by strict privacy laws and democratic oversight, they will blur the line between accountability and control.

Canadians deserve an infrastructure they can trust. This means they deserve to know where the data is stored, who profits from its use and whether freely opting out of systems, including digital ID, will remain a right in the digital era, especially when it comes to accessing essential taxpayer-funded services. Without these answers, a trusted AI ecosystem becomes a polite euphemism for centralized control.

As artificial intelligence transforms our economy, the budget projects that governments and industries will soon do more with fewer people. They claim that efficiency will rise, but we know that the security of work will fall. Some in government are even speaking of the universal basic income as a solution and a way to keep people afloat when machines do the work for us. As we modernize, we must never allow people to be reduced to mere consumers at the end of a bar code or a QR code. Human beings are not data points to be managed; we are souls with a purpose, and the future we build must reflect that truth.

This Parliament has a sacred duty to guard the public ledger of our nation, not only its finances but also its direct impact on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The generational shift this budget accelerates is real, and it is happening at lightning speed. We see it in Bill C-5, which centralizes national development and infrastructure decisions. We are witnessing the government redefining the Canadian dream of owning a home by telling gen Z to accept a future in which they will rent modular homes instead of owning property and building equity for their families. In the digital era, we must find new ways to hold government accountable. Traditional critiques of centralization no longer apply, because governments will not be acting alone.

In this technocratic system, the very agile nation model that the Liberal government has been studying over the past few years has become a reality, and citizens themselves become the inputs that help the state move faster. The budget addresses problems like inflation with solutions that may limit our freedom, such as digital IDs. As well, for example, there could be programmable money that can expire, designed with the goal of keeping money circulating by forcing us to spend it before it expires, and currencies that can dictate how and when Canadians spend. The digital infrastructure investment in the budget claims to be generationally transformative. However, history will judge us not by how efficiently we digitize the nation but by whether we preserve the soul of this democracy in the process.

For five years, I have been monitoring and speaking about how the digitization of the economy and our infrastructures will affect our identities, and now it is here. Now, all that remains is how we choose to respond. Our task is not to reject progress but to reclaim purpose. As parliamentarians, we must insist that technology serves Canadians rather than replacing them. Our duty is to fight with dignity, sovereignty and the soul of the people, who must never be reduced to a mere QR code.

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

Madam Speaker, if I look at the contrast, we are not fearful of technology. We see the important role, for example, that the Internet plays in the advancement of society. There are a lot of positive things, but there are some negatives, which is one of the reasons we brought in Bill C-8, the cybersecurity act. However, the Conservative Party has refused to allow it to go to committee so that we can address some of the concerns, and some might say paranoia, that is espoused from the other side.

Bill C-8 would protect our industries; it would protect our consumers. Can the member provide her thoughts regarding why the Conservative Party does not recognize the value of Bill C-8, which is all about cybersecurity, protecting Canadians and protecting Canada's economic industries?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would remind the member opposite that Bill C-8 purports to be able to shut down people's Internet without a court warrant. In an era in which the government is moving toward digitization and AI controls, people could end up in digital jails. That is why it is so important to have safeguards and accountability and ensure that with the government collecting this data, we know how it is used, we know that people's civil liberties are being upheld and we know that the government is being held accountable.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, my region of Abitibi—Témiscamingue has been experiencing some stormy weather. Fortunately, I have my winter tires on. It took me an extra hour to get here to Ottawa last night. We should all be ready for a potential election, unless the Conservative Party decides to chicken out, as the saying goes.

Can my colleague give us the scoop or some sort of indication of what her party plans to do later to ensure that an election is called or is not called?

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, when I look at my portfolio as the critic for infrastructure, I see that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is actually receiving $10 billion more than it received before. We know of the recent scandal with respect to the $1 billion sent abroad to fund the building of ships for BC Ferries, leaving our employees in Canada without jobs.

The real issue with the budget is accountability. We are not seeing the level of accountability and responsibility that should be entrusted with Canadian tax dollars.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that thorough speech. It certainly was very informative.

I would like to ask the member the following question, given the youth unemployment crisis and the health care crisis we have in this country, among a bunch of other things. We see an additional $324 billion added to the national debt over the next five years and being passed on to future generations. I wonder if the member can share with us the thoughts of some of her constituents, and how she feels, about passing on this debt for future generations to pay at a time when this budget is calling for us to pay more money in interest payments to banks than we are putting into health care, of all things.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

My concern, Madam Speaker, is with respect not only to the debt but also to how it is calculated. The fact is that the accounting system is changing, so Canadians have no real way of measuring the progress in this country. We will need some sort of independent auditing to assess whether the government is repackaging debt or whether we are actually seeing real progress in this country. Therefore, I am very concerned about the way that things such as operating expenses are now shifted over to be calculated as capital—

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

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Edmonton Northwest.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for sharing her time with me.

Canadians have now had time to absorb this budget. A common theme heard from everyday Albertans in my riding of Edmonton Northwest is that the budget fails to address the number one concern of Canadians today: affordability. The government touts this budget as a generational budget, but the future generations of Canada, the young people of this country, only see ever-increasing challenges ahead in living their lives.

For the first time in a long time, Canadian young people are saying that they expect life to be worse than it was for their parents' generation. Housing is out of reach. I hear directly from young people in my riding who want to start a family and own a home but do not see a path to achieving those dreams.

Food costs, caused by inflationary spending and government taxes, are making getting basic meals a challenge. There are record lineups at food banks. Canadians are not imagining these things, as the government likes to say. Education is increasingly expensive and spots are less available. Wages are stagnant and the cost of living is rising faster than any of the paycheques people receive.

The urgency of this reality is not reflected in the priorities of the budget. On top of this, the Prime Minister has directly asked young Canadians to sacrifice even more. The budget talks about long-term housing supply but fails to address the crushing affordability crisis of youth today.

Youth, like all Canadians, are looking for leadership. The leadership they are looking for is systematic, not the same, old strategy of the last decade, when the government attempted to be the economic driver of Canada while systematically undermining the economy. It is the same failed approach the government takes with our resource sector.

We see in the budget a focus on major projects, which is good, but we do not see the systematic leadership to unleash the true potential of our resource sector. A vague line exists in the budget about the oil and gas cap, but this is only if carbon capture is a part of the equation, which would cost Canadians billions of dollars. The industrial carbon price, the tanker ban and Bill C-69 are still in place, and they are all things that tell investors that Alberta, in particular, is not a priority to Canada.

The government still very much controls the system, effectively saying to the market, “We know very much our own rules are ineffective and prohibitive, but if you lobby us for government subsidies, we will determine if you are a winner or a loser.”

There are indications out there that the federal government intends to sign an MOU with the Province of Alberta. While we were told things would be getting done at record speeds, MOUs do not get shovels into the ground. MOUs are non-binding; legislative systematic changes are binding.

Alberta is the natural resource engine of Canada, and this budget only vaguely strings Albertans continuously along the path of more federal government control over our potential as a province to help our whole country. Albertans have proven for decades that their entrepreneurship, particularly in the oil and gas industry, has been a catalyst for helping the whole country. From Newfoundland to B.C. and the north, people are heating their homes with diesel from our oil and gas fields.

I reflect upon my great-grandfather, Chief William Morin, who, in the 1950s, embraced oil and gas development, and said this would be the catalyst to increasing the living standards of his people and having us stand on our own two feet in the face of Indian Act paternalism. This brings me to the consequences of this budget on indigenous peoples.

It has now been just over six months since I arrived in Ottawa as a first-time member of the House. In my previous life as chief of my nation, I sought to lead in the example set by my great-grandfathers and the chiefs who came before me. They were entrepreneurial, first-time farmers in the late 1800s. They embraced oil and gas as a resource to eradicate poverty in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s and started gaming in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, so as to show our people and Canada that we were responsible net contributors to treaty.

This coincides with the notion of self-determination and the fact that Ottawa does not know what is best for our people. Since 1867, Indian Affairs, now Indigenous Services Canada, underpinned by the Indian Act, has failed indigenous peoples across Canada. I came to Ottawa knowing that major structural changes were needed in how Indigenous Services Canada manages the relationship with indigenous peoples. Now more than ever, I know it to be true that significant structural changes are needed.

I was fortunate to lead my community on this new journey in the era of reconciliation, even doing some good things with the government along the way. I was only able to do so by the foundation of self-determination set by my chiefs who came before me, who sought effective win-win partnerships with Canada and Canadians by coming to the table with our own source revenue. For too many first nations, Métis and Inuit, this is not the case.

Now I am afraid the Liberal government has reduced reconciliation to performative slogans, ministerial addresses and press releases. The budget offers none of the structural improvements to take reconciliation to the next necessary level, a level defined by individual entrepreneurship, less government, and more chief and council oversight. The government uses softer, patronizing language such as “reallocation” and “re-evaluation” and says that it is spreading reconciliation around to other ministries. All of this is performative and is part of the paternalistic saviour strategy that has created more uncertainty, fear, disappointment and division among indigenous peoples and Canadians.

What does it say about priorities when the federal government increases spending in the administrative aspects of Indigenous Services, such as the new bureaucratic commissioner's office, whose titles sound nice, but they have no real power to make tangible change in the community on the ground? The budget is good news for new federal offices and jobs. It is also good news for major project advisory boards, consultants and fraudulent companies posing as indigenous contractors, but it is not good news for indigenous peoples in community.

To quote the national chief, “When the best we can say is that Indigenous Services is only being cut 2%, we know that there's a problem”. The rephrasing of how this budget deals with indigenous communities is a distraction from ISC cutting $2.3 billion in services while doing basically nothing to lower the administrative costs of government.

Thus far, the only legislation submitted in the House during this session has been for more bureaucracy for the indigenous files. Since 2018, ISC has doubled its staff from 4,000 to roughly 8,000 full-time equivalents. This is billions more in administration. It has been reported that 42¢ of every ISC budget dollar goes to administrative aspects. That would be more than $10 billion. Imagine what that money could do if it actually reached communities and entrepreneurs directly.

The budget does nothing to change that and only exasperates more government control and dependency. There are zeros in this budget in the table entitled “Indigenous Reconciliation” after this year. There is no dedicated chapter to indigenous spending like there was in years past. This will only make navigating bureaucracy even worse, leaving behind vulnerable first nations, Métis and Inuit communities that lack capacity. Is this all by design?

The finance minister said in his speech, when referring to indigenous peoples of this country, “we build not just for ourselves; we build also for those who will follow us.” Are indigenous nations to interpret that as it being the government's way or the highway when it comes to critical infrastructure and housing? When it comes to this tactic and this philosophy, is the government using it in Bill C-5 as well?

In his next sentence, the finance minister had the audacity to say, “I am often reminded of the seven-generation principle. Rooted in indigenous teachings, it is a reminder that every decision we take must consider its impact on future generations.” With zeros on the chart for reconciliation beyond this year, along with cuts, more dependency on government and an $80-billion deficit, the finance minister shows again that he is all about virtue signalling indigenous people and Canadians and only cares about adding seven generations' worth of debt to all of Canada.

As Conservatives, we recognize the importance of self-determination and not dependency. We believe indigenous communities are fully capable of managing their own services, driving their own economies and protecting their own lands. We needed more promotion of healing and recovery in the face of addiction for indigenous communities. That is a federal jurisdiction for the Liberals, not a provincial one.

We needed Liberals to keep their commitment to making policing essential and to not walk it back, as was indicated by the public safety minister two weeks ago. How are indigenous people able to meaningfully participate in the economy when they are in constant crisis when it comes to safety, crime, addiction and poverty?

The Prime Minister says that we are in a trade crisis as a country. Indigenous communities have been in crises for decades. This budget does nothing to change that. We needed to set the table for entrepreneurship in this budget. Instead, there is no timeline for changing the broken federal indigenous procurement program, which highlights fraud and is ripping off indigenous peoples and Canadians alike. What we needed was not for more federal government, but for the federal government to commit to structural change and get out of the way.

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

Madam Speaker, like the member opposite, I am a member of Parliament from the Prairies, and I look at the investments. I look at the major projects announcements and how our western provinces are going to benefit by these immensely, whether that is through mining, LNG or all sorts of other opportunities. We also have a Prime Minister who is working very closely with the Premier of Alberta.

It was interesting that the member shot down the idea of the Prime Minister and the Premier of Alberta getting along and possibly even coming up with an MOU. I am wondering if he can reflect on that negativism. Does he recognize that having a positive relationship with the Premier of Alberta and having an MOU are good things?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did not say it was a bad thing for Alberta and Canadians to work together, but what I was highlighting was an indigenous perspective about the crisis we are faced with today. Sure, I wholeheartedly support Alberta and Canada working together when it comes to major projects, but those projects are five years, 10 years or maybe decades away. All these announcements are recycled announcements from over the last decade, when there have been no shovels actually in the ground.

What I was referring to was the actual processes and crises facing first nations communities in the ISC files today as opposed to the major projects. Those are two different things. I hope the member reflects upon those crises facing Canadians and the actual things that are not getting done by the Liberal government to change that today.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed in the budget.

From 2009 to 2011, I was a political staffer for the Hon. Johanne Deschamps, the member for Laurentides—Labelle at the time. Even back then, we had concerns about employment insurance and felt there was a need to reform benefits for serious illness. Now it is 2025. We have been waiting for a complete overhaul since 2015. Some 50,000 workers will be eligible for it.

What about the people of Quebec? Does my colleague agree that a comprehensive reform should be included in the budget, especially for regions where there is a lot of seasonal work, whether in the forestry or tourism industries, for example?

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do wholeheartedly agree that times are changing and technology is changing. This country does need a strategy when it comes to AI and AI reform. I believe my colleague who spoke before me spoke about this very well. I hope to see that reflected more clearly in the budget. I do not think we are getting that from this current budget. Canadians have solutions.

I think the government has promoted that it is using a top-down approach and knows everything about AI or different sectors, like when it comes to the resource sector or anything like that, but we need to uplift entrepreneurs in our tech sector and give them the power to lead this initiative while strategically aligning with them side by side.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Madam Speaker, my neighbour from Edmonton Northwest or, as I call it, West Edmonton Mall northwest, had an excellent speech and brought up a lot of points.

This budget is an omnibus budget, just like other Liberal budgets, despite Liberal promises to not have omnibus legislation. It contains probably dozens of required legislative changes, but none of those will cover the important things for Alberta, such as repealing Bill C-48, the tanker ban, or Bill C-69, the no new pipelines bill. In fact, it does not commit to repealing the emissions and production cap either.

I wonder if my colleague could opine on what this means for Alberta, that the government still insists on keeping Bill C-48, Bill C-69 and the emissions cap.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from West Edmonton Mall asked a good question.

I spoke about this in my address. It is frustrating as an Albertan. The government says one thing and then walks it back. It is systematic changes that we need in this country. It is not Bill C-5 being used as a weapon to pick winners and losers. We need to unite this country, yet we have seen no projects coming out of Alberta thus far.

The Prime Minister is from Alberta. Maybe we are going to see a MOU in the next couple of days, but that is still not going to change the fact that legislation still exists to block resources that go to protect this whole country, heating homes from Newfoundland to B.C. and the remote north. Albertans just feel like they are getting left behind.

When the government talks about Canada strong and Canadian unity, I really question the motives behind that.

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Halifax.

I rise today to speak in strong support of budget 2025. This is a budget that strengthens our economy, advances a fair society and ensures safer, more resilient communities for all Canadians.

Last week, I received a letter from Emma, a 13-year-old student in Burnaby Central. After reading my September mailer, she urged her government to stand up against unfair U.S. tariffs and policies that would hurt Canadian workers and families. However, Emma's letter did not stop there. She is openly queer and wanted a government that stands for equality, fairness and inclusion. Her voice reminds us that the work we do in Parliament matters to the next generation. When a young person feels safe and empowered to speak up about trade and protecting 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, it speaks volumes about our country and our responsibility as lawmakers.

This is why I am so proud that budget 2025 provides long-term, stable funding to the Department of Women and Gender Equality to advance women's equity, prevent gender-based violence and protect 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians. We owe it to Emma and to every young Canadian to build a society where they are free from fear and free to dream.

I recently visited Nelson Avenue Community Church in my riding, where members shared one concern I hear every day: the high cost of housing and ensuring seniors can live with dignity in their communities. Budget 2025 delivers real, practical solutions. We are building deeply affordable community and co-op housing for low-income families; eliminating GST for first-time homebuyers for homes under $1 million and reducing it for homes between $1 million and $1.5 million; increasing CMBs to support more housing starts; and supporting seniors through the new horizons for seniors program and funding local projects like fitness programs and national initiatives like financial literacy classes for seniors so they can stay active and live with dignity. Together with the build communities strong fund, these measures help families and seniors stay in the communities they love and flourish in.

Building a stronger Canada takes government, industry and world-class polytechnic institutions. In Burnaby Central, we are proud to be home to the British Columbia Institute of Technology, a national leader defining what polytechnic education means in Canada. BCIT is not just a school; it is a powerhouse of talent. It is where Canada's welders, electricians, engineers, technicians, nurses and innovators get the hands-on training that builds our country and infrastructure, powers our industries and strengthens our economy.

As our government advances $115.2 billion in infrastructure investment, we will rely on BCIT more than ever, because without skilled apprentices, trained tradespeople and innovators ready to lead, no major project gets built, not on time and not on budget. BCIT is building the workforce of tomorrow. Our job is to ensure institutions like BCIT have the tools to keep doing that.

Innovation is happening in Burnaby. I recently toured three remarkable companies. Novarc Technologies is a global leader in welding automation, using AI robotics to tackle complex industrial applications. This is critical as Canada ramps up infrastructure and clean technology projects. Svante Technologies is a world leader in carbon capture, turning climate ambition into action and helping Canada lead in clean technology. BlueForce Energy advances low-carbon transition through electric fleet conversions, battery storage and renewable energy solutions.

To compete globally, Canada must reduce its carbon intensity. In Burnaby, leading innovators are showing how Canadian expertise, from advanced manufacturing to clean technology, can drive a cleaner, stronger and more competitive future.

Emma reminded me that young Canadians already understand one important truth: We cannot rely on one trading partner. With 70% of our exports going to the United States, trade diversification is essential.

Budget 2025 strengthens Canada's economic ties across the Indo-Pacific by deepening our relationship with key economic and trade partners such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India and Australia, while expanding opportunities with ASEAN members and Europe. Through this partnership, Canada is creating opportunities in agriculture, clean technology, digital trade, advanced manufacturing, and services, ensuring Canadian businesses can compete globally while building a more resilient economy at home. A diversified economy is a resilient economy, and this budget makes it a priority.

Every week in Burnaby Central, families tell me the same thing: They are working hard, but everything is so expensive. They want a government that gets that and acts on it. Budget 2025 does exactly that, delivering real relief that makes life more affordable for the middle class.

It starts with a tax cut. On July 1 this year, the first federal tax bracket dropped from 15% to 14%, helping nearly 22 million Canadians and saving dual-income households up to $840. Budget 2025 also strengthens safety and security for all Canadians.

Last week, I hosted a tea party in my constituency office with small business owners, health care professionals, college security managers, Burnaby firefighters and the RCMP. One consensus was clear: We all want safe neighbourhoods.

This budget delivers on that promise. It invests in 1,000 new RCMP officers to keep our communities safe, invests $617.7 million to strengthen the CBSA's capacity to stop smuggling and illegal weapons, reforms the Canada community security program to protect places of worship and culture centres, creates a new anti-fraud strategy to implement stronger protections for consumers, particularly seniors and newcomers, and creates a new financial crimes agency to bring together the expertise and resources needed to stop criminal activities. These are not abstract numbers; they are practical, tangible investments that reflect our values, protect our communities, support frontline workers and ensure that every person can feel safe and secure in their home and neighbourhood.

In October, I visited Burnaby Hospital to discuss the hospital's expansion project and the critical shortage of health care professionals. The leadership expressed strong support for foreign-trained health care workers. Separately, I spoke with two foreign-trained physiotherapists who shared their frustration with Canada's licensing process, which can take three to four years. I know their struggle personally. After earning my law degree in Australia, it took me 18 months to become a qualified lawyer here in Canada.

Budget 2025 is taking action. It provides $97 million to create a foreign credential recognition action fund, helping provinces and territories make it faster and easier for internationally trained professionals to contribute their skills and serve Canadians. It is about cutting red tape, and we are recognizing talent.

When Emma, a brave 13-year-old girl, wrote to me asking whether her government would stand up against U.S. tariffs and stand with her as an openly queer Canadian, she was not just asking for reassurance; she was asking for action. With this budget, we are saying yes: yes to workers, who need stability; yes to families, who need affordability; yes to students, who need opportunities and careers; yes to businesses, which need certainty; yes to newcomers, who need a fair start; yes to seniors, who deserve dignity; yes to women, who deserve safety and protection from gender-based violence; yes to 2SLGBTQI+ Canadians, who deserve to know their country stands with them and protects them; and yes to Canada, a country that refuses to settle, refuses to slow down and refuses to leave anyone behind. It is a country that builds boldly, competes fiercely and stands ready to lead.

This budget is our answer to a Canada that lifts people up, protects their rights and builds a future worthy of their courage, while making our economy stronger, more resilient and ready for the challenges of tomorrow. I thank Emma for her courage, her voice and her hope. She is the future of Canada.

Let us pass this transformational budget and build a Canada ready for Emma and for every child, every family and every future generation that will shine in the Canada we build today.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech, and he talked about families and this somehow being a transformational budget, which of course is far from being so.

Today, sadly, 24,000 children will walk into food banks in this country hungry. The government had an opportunity here to do something about the industrial carbon tax, which adds costs to farmers on their equipment and their manufacturing processes. They get passed down onto the food prices people face when they walk into a grocery store. It is a question of affordability. Families cannot afford to eat, including the over 700,000 children who are walking into food banks hoping for some food today, children who are hungry.

Can the member please expand on why his government did not look at the industrial carbon tax seriously and did not provide help for the children and the 2.2 million Canadians walking into food banks hungry today?

[Wade Chang, Liberal, Burnaby Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, our government is reducing personal income tax, we are reducing GST on first-time homebuyers and we are doing our best to protect the everyday Canadians who work hard in our country.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and for having the nerve to rise in the House to defend the indefensible, and by that I mean this budget. Obviously, I will be voting against it. Why? For one thing, because my constituents gave me a mandate to defend them. Barely seven months have gone by, but if we have to go plant signs in the snow again, we will, because this budget tramples on our convictions.

I find it especially hypocritical of the Liberals to pretend that they held consultations. That is completely untrue. Our demands were practically stricken from the budget in advance to make sure they would not pass. I think that the Liberals did the same with all the other parties.

I just want to point out how the Liberals have been penny-pinching with seniors. How can my colleague rise before fixing the unjustifiable gap that has been created and that is keeping seniors in poverty? I would like him to stand up and tell us what actions his party is taking to protect seniors, because I do not see any.