Debates of Nov. 20th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a rather pointed question about something that is not in the budget or in Bill C‑15, and that is the government's intention to legislate on forced labour and child labour.

In the two previous budgets, the government stated its intention to legislate on this issue, but, at a time when the Prime Minister is trying to thaw relations with China, there is no mention of it in the budget at all. I find that rather fascinating.

The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C‑251, which seeks to reverse the burden of proof so that it is up to importers, rather than customs officers, to prove that their products are not made with forced labour.

I would like to know whether the Conservatives will support the Bloc Québécois's bill. I would also like to know whether my colleague thinks that the government should just take the Bloc's bill and introduce it as a government bill.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will certainly examine the Bloc's bill on this issue. Obviously, this is a new proposal, but I agree that the government has not done what it takes to put an end to forced labour.

I, too, have a lot of objections to the Prime Minister's change in rhetoric on the Chinese government. If the government has decided to stop presenting ideas to put an end to forced labour, it may be because this Prime Minister wants to have a different relationship with the Chinese government, despite the reality of the human rights issue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's perspective as he identified the mismatch between what Bill C-15, the implementation bill of the budget, tries to do and the reality of the economy we are facing right now. He is not alone.

Would he comment on the fact that the PBO has identified only a 7.5% likelihood that the government is going to hit its massive $78.3-billion deficit? Could it also be that he is identifying a mismatch between what is said in the budget and the probable outcomes of it?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that excellent question gives me an opportunity to salute the important work the Parliamentary Budget Officer is doing. He has illustrated how the government has been fudging the numbers. Sadly, when one fudges around, one is going to find out. There are going to be negative consequences from the fudging of numbers.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is now being targeted by the government because of his work. We should be giving him the mandate and the independence to do the work he needs to do, exposing the abuses of the government.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House, I would like to share my time with the member for Rimouski—La Matapédia

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in the House to represent the residents of my riding of Drummond.

I do not know of any parent, any father or any mother, who would boast about feeding two of their children while leaving the other three to go hungry. That, however, is exactly what the Liberals are doing with this budget.

Let us start with the media. An amount of $150 million is earmarked for CBC/Radio-Canada. To be clear, I am pleased that the government is supporting CBC/Radio-Canada. I have also strongly advocated, for longer than the minister has, for a review of CBC/Radio-Canada's funding model. For a long time now, I have said that Canada should be more closely aligned with other countries that also have a public broadcaster. For a long time now, I have felt that $33 per Canadian per year to fund a public broadcaster with a territory the size of the one that CBC/Radio-Canada has to cover is peanuts.

Our public broadcaster was forced to look to revenue sources such as advertising and subscription fees, which meant it had to compete with private broadcasters. That worked for many years. The market thrived, and everything was great. One day, however, the American digital giants came along and soon dominated the market, as we have seen in recent years.

The result is that private broadcasters, who were in good shape until quite recently, are now in jeopardy. It has reached a point where massive job cuts keep happening in regions of Quebec and, no doubt, all across Canada as well, because there is no concern for the problems faced by private broadcasters.

Some extremely simple solutions were available, but the $150 million for CBC/Radio-Canada was nothing more than an expensive Liberal election promise to counter the Conservatives' spring election campaign rhetoric calling for a straight-up cut of the CBC's funding. If the Liberals had truly wanted to help the media, they would not have handed $150 million to CBC/Radio-Canada just like that, with a promise to talk about it again next year. They would instead have proposed a comprehensive review of our public broadcaster's mandate.

This is what we are asking for. This is what is required. This is what the previous Canadian heritage minister, Ms. St-Onge, proposed, with intelligent and thoughtful solutions that the current minister and government have not even considered. A comprehensive review would have included an evaluation of CBC/Radio-Canada's current funding, and would also have sought to partially or totally free the public broadcaster from its reliance on advertising and subscription fees by providing funding that would support the level of service expected from a public broadcaster. In time, this would have opened up the advertising and subscription market to private broadcasters.

I am talking about really simple measures that the government could have taken to help news media, including measures that are all too familiar to the government because it has heard about them for years from the Bloc Québécois and through testimony from media companies during their many appearances on Parliament Hill. For instance, electronic media, radio and television newsrooms could be offered the same payroll tax credit for journalists and newsrooms as the payroll tax credit offered to print media and newspapers. That is not something that will affect taxpayers' pocketbooks. This is something that will give news companies, radio, Cogeco, Québecor, Bell, and so forth a big break and ease their financial burden. News production is costly and yields limited profits, and yet it is essential. We have to keep that in mind. The Liberals would have done that if they were really serious about helping the media. They would have implemented this measure, which is readily available and simple, and it would not have had any impact on the budget, which already delivers a historic deficit.

Another gesture of goodwill from the Liberals would have been to abolish the silly tax deduction for ad purchases from American companies. Advertisers that buy ads from web giants online get a tax deduction. That is ridiculous. Simply removing that option would give our local and regional media a bit more breathing room.

Clearly, the Liberals do not care one iota about private broadcasters. They have easy solutions right in front of them, and yet we have an industry that is in crisis and that has been making submissions and sounding the alarm non-stop. Radio stations are shutting down and there are layoffs in the regions, as happened with TVA. My colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia can speak to that later. TVA cut 87 jobs in the regions just a few days ago. Now we have a budget that will not do anything for regional radio and the jobs they provide.

The government cannot claim to be concerned about regional and private media with a budget like this one, which offers nothing to help them deal with their current crisis. This sends a message that the government simply does not care about them.

Let us talk a bit about culture. On a more positive note, I am really pleased to see that this budget earmarks money for certain cultural sectors. The minister says with great pride that this is a record budget for culture, with a $760-million investment in culture. That is a big number, a number to brag about and be proud of. I am happy for our audiovisual industry, as it truly needed this. It is true that funding was included for various sectors, such as for major festivals and events. That is true.

However, we would have preferred to see permanent enhancements, a permanent increase in funding. We would have preferred that over another round of one-time payments, but at least there is some money coming in. Of course, when a person is starving and someone throws them a crust of bread, they are not going to turn their nose up at it. If the government had been serious, it would have offered the permanent boost in funding that the cultural sector was asking for. That is what we would have liked to see.

This will nevertheless be good for the audiovisual industry. It is important for us to be able to produce Canadian stories, with quality productions, eventually exporting them and increasing the return on investment, and in the process gaining recognition around the world with the tools we have now for sharing our culture. I am satisfied with that. However, as I said at the start of my speech, we cannot be proud of feeding only part of our family. When one has responsibilities, one must make sure no one is left behind.

The performing arts such as dance, theatre and orchestral music needed to see an increase in funding for the Canada Council for the Arts. The need was clear, it was great, it had long been expressed, it was known. The Canada Council for the Arts budget needed to be increased by $140 million in order to meet this demand, a demand that is growing, because costs have exploded, there are more applicants, and there are people who have ideas for productions that would be of interest to the public.

Despite a well-supported request for a $140-million funding increase to the Canada Council for the Arts, the government thought that a $6-million increase would satisfy them. I would remind members that while this was happening, they gave Radio-Canada, which had already prepared its budget and presented its five-year plan, $150 million. The Canada Council for the Arts will be getting only $6 million, and the government expects that will satisfy theatre companies.

The direct consequence of that is that smaller productions will be shelved. These productions offer a platform for discovering fresh content and emerging artists who might not have access to major theatres, as they often present content that leans toward the unconventional, but is nevertheless deeply compelling. These artists, these emerging productions, shape the future of performing arts, particularly in theatre and dance, as I mentioned earlier. That is negligence, as these productions will literally disappear because the government did not provide adequate funding.

The Bloc Québécois had a good solution, and the solution is still on the table. The digital services tax can be converted into a 3% levy that would be exclusively invested in the cultural and media sector. This would generate $7 billion over five years, or $1.5 billion a year. This type of measure would solve many issues. It would not hurt taxpayers because the money would come from digital giants. The government keeps saying no to that. It is a great idea, but the government says it will not implement it just because it did not think of it first.

I am going to conclude on a lighter note by saying from the outset that I have a deep affection for the Scottish people. I have visited Scotland and I got to know its people. I have friends there and I love them, and so I beg them to forgive me for this bit of humour as I finish my speech. The French comedian Jacques Bodoin was talking about his trip to Scotland where he was asked to try haggis, Scotland's national dish. I will leave it to members to do their own research if they want to know more about the ingredients that go into the dish. At the end of the meal, Mr. Bodoin was asked what he thought about the dish, and he responded that at first, when the dish was brought to the table, he thought that it was, and I quote, a turd, but after tasting it, he wished it had been one.

This budget is like haggis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my friend can help me better understand the Bloc's position. The Bloc party ultimately voted against the budget, which would provide so much with respect to benefits, building a stronger Canadian economy and much that is of great substance to the benefit of the Province of Quebec. The Bloc Québécois talked a great deal about the arts program, CBC/Radio-Canada. Surely to goodness its members are aware of the positions the Conservative Party of Canada has taken, for example, getting rid of the CBC, to the detriment of our culture, heritage and arts programs. I wonder if he can explain why the Bloc would prefer to see the Conservatives have an election as opposed to continuing on with the Liberal government.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about CBC/Radio-Canada and about the Conservative position. As I said in my speech, I am in favour of a public broadcaster, but I am also in favour of private media and of news and information that is fair and equitable. I am not in favour of just one broadcaster getting preferential treatment over the others.

We did not agree with the Conservatives' campaign proposal to eliminate funding for CBC/Radio-Canada. However, this measure, which is nothing more than an election promise to give CBC/Radio-Canada $150 million this year, does not solve the problem in the long term. CBC/Radio-Canada's mandate and funding model need an overhaul. That is not the kind of work that gets done over a weekend. It will take a long time, and it will require serious people to delve into the matter and consult stakeholders, as former minister Pascale Saint-Onge did. She started the work, and the Liberals could have continued it. They could have done the right thing by not neglecting private broadcasters. That is the problem with CBC/Radio-Canada and the government's $150 million.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It was well researched, as always. We have different points of view, as he so aptly put it, but that is the beauty of democracy.

I do not want to get into the details of his culinary remark from a few moments ago. I did not catch the name of the dish. Does he think that this dish could also apply to the fact that this government is doing worse than it did under Justin Trudeau? One might have expected a prime minister with an international reputation as a renowned banker to do much better than a drama teacher.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do enjoy the theatre. That said, one would certainly have expected something more rigorous from an expert in economics and finance.

We are somewhat surprised to see so much creative accounting in this budget. There are billions of dollars in spending that the government is treating as assets. We also know that if the same accounting approach were applied to Justin Trudeau's budgets during his years as prime minister, it would appear that he balanced the budget half of the time. There are serious questions about the intellectual honesty and integrity reflected in this budget.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend and congratulate my colleague from Drummond for his very thorough work. I enjoyed the touch of humour he added at the end of his speech, and I think it really picks up on what a lot of people are thinking.

Over the years, my colleague has also demonstrated thoroughness in his work on culture and the media, whether national or regional. Right now, we are still faced with a media crisis at the national level and even at the regional level, and it is only getting worse. In Rimouski, in my riding, TVA has cut jobs. In 2023, the Rimouski station had 30 employees. Two years later, only eight remain.

Since 2023, TVA has cut nearly 800 jobs in all. The government tells us day after day during question period that it is investing in the media. Giving $150 million to CBC/Radio-Canada is all well and good, but this budget contains absolutely nothing for our private broadcasters and television networks.

I would like my colleague from Drummond to clearly lay out the Bloc Québécois's expectations and the consequences of the federal government's inaction and irresponsible behaviour.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague has described exactly what our regions and smaller centres are currently feeling: a genuine loss of confidence that this government will save a significant pillar of democracy.

Local media cannot simply be a sort of antenna that transmits what is happening in Montreal, Quebec City and Toronto. They must also have the ability to cover the news, share information, and showcase the reality of the regions they represent. That is what we are in the process of losing. We are losing the personality of our regions, which is so vitally important. What makes Quebec Quebec is the unique character of the regions, each of which is different from every other.

The media is a critical pillar of democracy, but we are losing it because the government is undermining the private broadcasters that provide high-quality news services. This is an absolute tragedy. I do not understand how this government, which claims to be a champion of democracy and the media, can fail to grasp the urgency of the situation.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to take part in this historic debate. The title of this budget is “Canada Strong”. Let me tell the House what I really think about it.

Let us be clear: The budget tabled by this government is, in my opinion, an absolute sham. It contains a record deficit of $78 billion dressed up with some creative accounting in an attempt to make $45 billion in fictional investments look like actual spending. This Prime Minister's track record in his first year is not looking good. He is doubling the deficit left by his predecessor. Like many other members, I would never have dreamed that anyone could make Justin Trudeau look frugal.

The Bloc Québécois had put forward six reasonable budget requests firmly rooted in the needs of our communities. We wanted the government to take care of people, support seniors, increase health transfers, maintain infrastructure, facilitate access to housing, and support families and workers more. There was nothing excessive about what we were asking; these are simply things the government should be doing to meet the basic needs of Quebeckers. However, Ottawa said “no” to all of this.

This government not only ignored our priorities, but it also gave up the fight against climate change by abandoning the 2030 targets, by breaking a promise that Justin Trudeau had made with great fanfare to plant two billion trees, and by extending the tax credits for oil and gas companies until 2040, at a cost of $100 billion. However, the government has no money to take care of the most vulnerable people who are struggling right now. I hope they are tuning in today, and I want to say hello to them.

At first glance, I would say that this budget seems a little conservative. I never thought I would say such thing. We are seeing Conservatives crossing the floor to join the Liberal Party. They are not just crossing the floor because the lunch is better on the other side. They are doing it because the budget has some good things in it that align strongly with the Conservative ideology. It does not matter what party is in power, because the budget does not meet the needs and priorities of Quebeckers.

Let us now turn to Bill C-15, which attempts to conceal some of the most troubling measures we have seen in recent years in its 650 pages amending 49 different acts. First, it allocates billions of dollars to introducing new grants for fossil fuels, extending the carbon capture tax credit until 2041—the “new fossil fuel fig leaf”, I call it—adding small nuclear reactors to supply heat for bitumen extraction, and opening the door to letting liquefied natural gas qualify for a tax credit that was not designed for such a thing. The government is sending a clear message today that the energy transition can wait, but oil subsidies cannot.

While Quebec is investing in hydroelectricity, wind power, biomass, clean innovations and smart grids, Ottawa is funding yesterday's energy sources. Quebec is making efforts to move forward with a transition, while Ottawa is funding things that set us back.

I am a proud member from the Lower St. Lawrence. I represent the people of Rimouski-Neigette, La Mitis, Matapédia, and Les Basques with dignity and pride. I want to say hello to them. These are strong and united communities with deep roots in their region. However, nothing in this budget or in Bill C-15 truly reflects our realities and priorities. Some of our regional media outlets are floundering. Our infrastructure is aging. There is a housing shortage going on everywhere, from big cities to villages. Our businesses are facing a labour shortage. Our cultural, community and science organizations are struggling to stay afloat. Bill C‑15 makes no mention of the Lower St. Lawrence or the people I represent. In our region, this is not merely a theoretical issue; it is a daily reality.

Just last week, TVA announced more job cuts at the Rimouski station, which went from 30 employees to only eight at present. There is only one camera operator to cover a huge geographic area. There used to be three, but from now on, the journalists will also handle filming. A total of 87 positions have been eliminated in Montreal, Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivières, Saguenay and Rimouski, in my riding. A total of 28 jobs were lost in the regions, and approximately 800 have been lost since 2023. This is not just an economic issue; it is an issue of democracy.

When regional news outlets shut down, our realities, our voices and our municipalities vanish from the public discourse. Instead of helping our media outlets, what did the government do? It abolished the digital services tax, a 3% tax on web giants, which would have brought in $7.2 billion. The Bloc Québecois did not cancel this tax. The Liberals did. They had acknowledged the need for this tax and laid the groundwork. They were scheduled to implement it in July.

Other countries stood their ground. France stood up to Donald Trump, and so did Italy, Spain, and the U.K. Ottawa caved in. By repealing the act, the government deprived itself of strong leverage it could have used in the trade negotiations with Washington. To make matters worse, it is refusing to extend the print media tax credit to electronic media. This is a simple but urgent measure. Ottawa is turning its back on regional news, and our communities are paying the price.

The problems do not end there. Clause 208 of Bill C-15 allows a minister to exempt any company from the application of any federal law, except the Criminal Code, for three years, without vote, without debate, without guardrails. This is a power that should never exist in a democracy. Bill C-15 is Bill C-5 on steroids.

Ottawa has created a new housing agency called Build Canada Homes with a budget of $11.5 billion. Its French name is “Maisons Canada”, but it started out as “Bâtir Maisons Canada”. No one knows what to call this program anymore. It reminds me of the song Une main haute and some of the election campaign speeches. When they are not messing around with program names, they mess around with songs. This Liberal government just makes it up as it goes along.

There are no criteria, no plan, no accountability and, worst of all, no agreement with the Quebec government. This means needless overlap from a parallel federal structure encroaching directly on our jurisdiction. In Quebec, we are not better or worse; we are just different. We have the Société d'habitation du Québec. We did not wait for the federal government to build homes. We took charge ourselves because we believe in our potential, our vision and, above all, our ambitions.

I am going to switch gears now and talk about the clean electricity tax credit. It will benefit oil companies, but mostly, it will benefit the oil- and gas-producing provinces. The credit covers 15% of investments, even in provinces where electricity comes from coal or gas. Contrary to what the government promised, Crown corporations will not even have to demonstrate that the money is reducing costs for consumers. It is a handout in disguise. The government is giving money to corporations that can do with it as they please. No one is even going to check whether it is good for the public. Forget about accountability. Once again, who is paying for this? It is Quebec that is paying, while others cash in at our expense.

It is like the $814 million that the Liberals stole from us. What a nice gift to hand out in the middle of an election on the backs of Quebeckers. We get punished because we are different. We get punished because we are innovators. That is the federal government all over. The federalist parties team up and walk all over us, and we see proof of that again today. We have seen it happen countless times since the Quebec nation came into existence.

There is another issue that we have reason to be up in arms about, and that is the much-talked-about high-speed rail project. The government is unilaterally taking control of this infrastructure project. In the omnibus Bill C-15, the government invokes its declaratory power to make the Quebec-Ontario high-speed rail project an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction. That is a direct infringement on Quebec's jurisdiction. It sets a dangerous precedent that should concern anyone who cares about respect for the division of powers. I hope my Conservative colleagues are listening to this. They respect provincial autonomy, but only when it suits them.

Quebec is doing its part and investing in the future, but Ottawa continues to insist on funding the past: oil companies, federal megastructures and web giants. Bill C‑15 does not respond to any of Quebec's priorities. It ignores our needs and weakens our regions. What is more, it infringes on our jurisdictions and diverts our resources to yesterday's industries.

That is why the Bloc Québécois will vote against this bill. Quebec deserves better and so do our regions. The people that I am proud to represent, the people of Rimouski‑Neigette, La Mitis, La Matapédia and Les Basques, deserve a government that will finally make them the focus of its decisions.

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

Mr. Speaker, I disagree wholeheartedly with many of the statements the member across the way put on the record.

One thing I would note, as the member made reference to the ties between Bill C-15 and Bill C-5, is the port of Montreal. There are significant major project investments there. It employs literally tens of thousands of people, both directly and indirectly. If we factor in the rest of Canada, it is well over half a million people who would be affected. There is a major investment in the port of Montreal.

The member also made reference to high-speed rail. As opposed to recognizing the benefits of high-speed rail, he is critical of the government for putting investments into Quebec, to the benefit of the citizens of Quebec.

Why is this particular member putting the interests of the Bloc ahead of those of the citizens of Quebec?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it always amuses me to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North speak.

He says that his government makes laws, but then it makes other laws to get around and sidestep the laws it made. What is the point of making laws if they can be sidestepped? That is what the government did with Bill C‑5. That is quite clear.

He tells us that his government has some good bills, and yet the government does not want to comply with the laws it has made, so a new law is needed to get around them.

What makes a bill good is when it abides by the law. It is pretty easy to understand. That is what democracy is all about. After that, we can debate, we can amend the laws or make adjustments. In this case, however, the government is trying to get around a dozen laws.

When a government has nothing to hide, it proves that its bills are good and it gets them passed using the processes in place, but that is not what this government is doing right now.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although our ridings border each other, it is extremely rare that I agree with my colleague.

Today, I am unfortunately forced to agree with him. In addition to running a deficit of nearly $80 billion, this budget contains nothing for our regions, absolutely nothing. The government says that this budget includes investments in major infrastructure, but sadly, there is very little for Quebec's regions, particularly the Lower St. Lawrence.

In response to a question last week, the Minister of Industry and Minister responsible for Canada Economic Development for Quebec Regions told me that Alstom would benefit. Fine, but where is the money? I have not seen anything yet, and Alstom has not received any federal contracts to my knowledge.

I agree with my colleague and I would like to hear his comments on this. Unfortunately, the Lower St. Lawrence region is completely absent from this budget.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and I salute him. If I may make a pun on his name, I would say that he is very “generous” with his comments, and I am humbled by them. This is a red-letter day.

I appreciate the way the member operates. I think we are both clear-headed. We come from the same region. We experience the same situations. I wish to salute the fine people of Témiscouata, whom he represents. I was the one who represented them proudly and with dignity for five years. Of course, while I still carry them with me in my heart, due to the redistribution, they are no longer in my riding. I hope my colleague takes the time to explore this spectacular region and say hello to everyone there.

As I said, there is next to nothing in the budget for the Lower St. Lawrence. My colleague put the question to the minister in English. I do not know whether she does not understand French, whether she understands English better, or whether she is more inclined to follow orders when she gets them in English, but I think we are largely in agreement.

Quebec's regions are completely left out of this budget. Once again, the focus is on objectives that have nothing to do with our realities and our priorities.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an extremely important point. I am surprised to see that members from all parties do not agree with us that a carbon tax rebate was issued even though the tax was never paid. Just before the election campaign, suddenly everyone across Canada received a cheque, except the people in Quebec and British Columbia, because those two provinces do not pay the carbon tax. That tax was never paid, and the rebate was issued before any payment had taken place. That represents $814 million that Quebec paid to the rest of Canada through its taxes during the federal election.

I would like my colleague to come back to that, because I think that this is unacceptable. The fact that no one in the House is rising to speak out on this is alarming to me.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member has 20 seconds to respond.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can we have an emergency debate on this in 20 seconds?

It is so insulting. We get robbed and ripped off, and then we are supposed to say thank you when they give us our own money back. Unbelievable. The Liberals spent $814 million on an election goody, a vote-buying handout, all from a tax that was never collected. To borrow another member's catchphrase, it is scandalous.

In my view, building a strong Canada does not mean spitting on Quebec, stealing its money and ripping it off every day.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-15. It is a financial plan that would deliver meaningful results for Canadians and real progress for Islanders, especially those living in eastern Prince Edward Island, where my riding is located.

The budget builds on the work that our rural, Atlantic and national caucus teams have championed, with investments that strengthen rural communities, support our fishers and farmers, modernize our infrastructure and make life more affordable for families. It is a plan rooted in fairness, opportunity and resilience, values that define both the country and our island way of life.

We introduced a tax cut to lower the first bracket from 15% to 14%, to save nearly 22 million Canadians up to $840 for a two-income family. The budget also cancelled the federal consumer carbon tax, effective April 1, 2025, immediately lowering fuel costs by about 18¢ a litre. For first-time homebuyers, the budget offers GST relief on new homes. This will make it easier for young Islanders to put down roots and build their future in our communities.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North today.

Budget 2025 also modernizes our system of delivering support to Canadians. In 2026, the Canada Revenue Agency will start preparing prefilled tax returns for about one million low-income Canadians. Once this is fully implemented, by 2029, over 5.5 million low-income Canadians will receive federal benefits automatically. This will mean a lot to seniors, students and low-income workers in P.E.I. They will not miss out on tax benefits simply because they did not file a tax return.

For island families with school-aged children, the budget makes the national school food program permanent. The program will save families an average of $800 per year on groceries. It will ensure that no child, not in Souris, not in Montague, not in Mount Stewart, goes to school hungry. The program utilizes help from local island restaurants to deliver meals. Roughly 52% of the food is prepared by local restaurants, and 48% of the meals are produced by program hubs across the island. I commend all the volunteers who manage the nutritious food program.

The budget also recognizes the workers who hold up our communities. The new personal support worker tax credit would provide up to $1,100 per year to eligible PSWs. This is a significant show of support for those caring for others in our communities.

The budget also introduces a national anti-fraud strategy, with a particular focus on protecting seniors, who are often the most vulnerable to scams and financial abuse. From stronger enforcement to improved public awareness tools, this initiative will help protect the life savings and financial security of island seniors, who have already contributed so much to our communities.

For our youth, $1.5 billion is invested over three years to expand the Canada summer jobs and student work placement programs to 175,000 positions. This is 45,000 more than the previous year, supporting young islanders and Canadians to gain valuable work experience near their homes.

Housing affordability is one of the most defining challenges of our time, and rural Atlantic communities feel it deeply. That is why the budget launched Build Canada Homes, an $11.5-billion investment in new funding over five years. Build Canada Homes will drive the development of affordable housing, provide flexible financial tools and mobilize the construction sector. Budget 2025 also commits to indigenous housing and infrastructure for first nations.

I would like to highlight the apartment construction loan program announcement in August. The program is already supporting new builds in eastern P.E.I. I was proud to host the housing and infrastructure round table in Stratford with the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure, where island builders, municipal leaders and non-profits discussed innovations, barriers and opportunities to accelerate construction in P.E.I.

To meet the growing demand for workers in construction, housing, energy and transportation, we must build stronger apprenticeship pathways. That is why budget 2025 would continue the government's work to expand skilled trades training, strengthen apprenticeship supports and help more young people enter Red Seal and construction careers. Islanders know the demand is here. Housing projects, infrastructure builds, new community facilities and clean energy initiatives all require a skilled workforce. The message is clear: Islanders want to build, and the budget would give them the support to do it.

Rural infrastructure is the foundation of strong communities. Budget 2025 would establish the build communities strong fund, with $51 billion over 10 years. This is one of the largest infrastructure investments in Canadian history. Of this, $5 billion would be dedicated to the health infrastructure fund, which is essential for modernizing hospitals and clinics across the region.

Budget 2025 lists support for one particular project in my riding: the SeaRoots Alliance wellness centre in Souris. It is a transformative community-led project that would improve the well-being of families across eastern P.E.I. and would support the next generation of community builders. Other key community projects in my riding that I hope will gain support through this program are the Stratford community campus, the TCAP Family Aquatic and Fitness Center in Montague and the replacement of the Kings County Memorial Hospital, which dates back to the 1970s.

Within this beautiful and sustainable environment of eastern P.E.I., the economy is powered by the sea and the soil. The budget recognizes our rural industries and would support them during a time of global uncertainty. Starting in the 2024-25 fiscal year, there was $463 million dedicated to repairs and maintenance of small crafts and harbours. There would be $109 million for the AgriStability program in 2025-26, and we have pledged $75 million over five years for AgriMarketing, to help island food products reach new markets.

Diversification is essential. We are actively expanding new trade corridors and markets so that island agriculture and seafood can reach global customers in Asia, Europe and beyond. Islanders produce world-class food. We are Canada's food island. Through Farm Credit Canada, the new trade disruption customer support program would provide $1 billion in new lending to help farmers and food processors weather global instability. These investments build on decisions made in July by our Prime Minister to cut Confederation Bridge tolls from over $50 to $20 and reduce the Atlantic ferry costs by 50%. Did members know that 400,000 passengers used the Wood Islands-Pictou ferry in 2025? Since fares were reduced last August, passenger volumes have increased by over 25%, providing a major boost for tourism and small businesses throughout eastern P.E.I.

Budget 2025 would invest $6.6 billion over five years to strengthen Canada's defence manufacturing base through the defence industrial strategy, creating new economic opportunities in Atlantic Canada. For those who have served, Veterans Affairs Canada, located in Charlottetown, would receive $185 million over four years plus $40 million ongoing to streamline disability benefits and modernize service delivery so that veterans receive the support they deserve.

Budget 2025 would also invest $4 million over four years to support National Acadian Day and $20 million over four years to enhance Canada Day celebrations nationwide. In a province with deep Acadian roots and proud traditions, these investments would help celebrate the culture and identity that bind us together.

None of this happened by accident. The budget reflects the relentless advocacy of our Atlantic caucus, which ensured that rural voices were not only heard but acted upon. We secured investments in housing and health care. We defended the interests of farmers and fishers. We pushed for relief for families and seniors. We championed the infrastructure for rural and coastal communities. For Islanders, especially in eastern P.E.I., this budget would mean better connectivity, stronger communities and a brighter future.

Islanders have always believed in hard work, fairness and looking out for one another. Budget 2025 reflects those same values.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe the member from across the way is genuine in his concern for the residents of the island, but the budget does not contain any provisions at all for the retraction of the clean-fuel standard or the industrial carbon tax, which both add significant cost for the people he represents. What are his feelings about that?

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I know our government needs to support trade diversification. If we want to do that, we have to maintain a strategy to meet our climate change commitments, and the industrial carbon tax is part of that strategy. Many of our global trading partners will be receptive to new trade deals if we remain committed to addressing climate change.