Debates of Nov. 20th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's question, comment and statement were excellent, and I agree with him.

In Canada, we are very blessed despite the changes that are happening in the world today. Despite many of the challenges that Canada is facing, we are acting from a strong fiscal position, and budget 2025 is our plan to ensure that we are building our economy, lowering our costs and making smart investments that will grow our economy for the long term.

Indeed we do have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio. The IMF has recognized our plan and has said that it is a right approach. This is our chance to build a stronger, more resilient economy with smart generational investments.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House to speak on behalf of my constituents in Chilliwack—Hope.

I will be sharing my time with the member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, who is approaching a very important anniversary. She is coming up very soon on nearly 25 years in the chamber. I congratulate her. She is one of my favourite members to hear speak, and I look forward to hearing her after my remarks are done.

The budget implementation act, which is what we are debating today, would implement a budget of broken promises and failures. The government has broken its own word that it gave to Canadians during an election just six months ago.

The Prime Minister said he would keep the deficit at $62 billion, Well, the budget has it at $78 billion, so he broke that promise in less than six months. He promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio, but he is raising it and causing inflation by failing to keep that promise.

The Prime Minister promised to spend less, but we see in the budget that he is spending $90 billion more, which equals $5,400 more in inflationary spending per household in the country. It is hard sometimes for Canadians to picture $90 billion, but they understand $5,400. Having that inflationary spending piled onto each household should worry all Canadians.

The Prime Minister promised more investment, but the budget reveals that investment is collapsing. Since the Prime Minister took office, there have been over 48,000 fewer jobs in Canada, and billions of dollars' worth of investment has fled the country.

That is a record of failure, and I have outlined just a number of the broken promises.

The Liberal government is a government of slogans and a government that likes to say that this budget is a generational budget, which is true if we are talking about the impact of the increased debt on future generations. The key thing here for Canadians is to understand that because of the government's profligate spending and its disregard for taxpayer dollars, the government will now spend more on interest payments to bankers and bondholders than it will pay for health care transfers in this country.

The interest is $55 billion, and again that is a number that is hard for Canadians to grasp, because most of them will never have $1 million let alone $1 billion. It is $55 billion given away, spent on interest charges and not on making life more affordable for Canadians or on making health care better.

My province is mismanaged by the government of British Columbia, the B.C. NDP. I will admit that part of the mismanagement is with the provincial government. There are routine closures of emergency wards across the province, and people cannot access emergency medicine for hundreds of kilometres because they do not have adequate doctors, nurses and facilities.

If we tell the people in my province of British Columbia that sending $55 billion to bankers and bondholders is better than spending more on health care, they will laugh in our faces. They will not accept that this is a generational budget. They know that sending away the money that should be going to program spending, just frittering it away on bankers and bondholders, is an inappropriate use of funds. It will continue under the current Liberal government, which makes Justin Trudeau look like a fiscal hawk. It has doubled his deficit.

Right around this time last year, the Liberals did not know who was going to present the economic update, because the finance minister at the time had resigned because she could not in good faith present a budget that presented a deficit about 50% lower than the one just introduced in this budget. The whole government was thrown into turmoil and had to rip the page out of the economic update that had her name on it. It just tabled it in the House without even giving a speech, because she was so concerned that it limited the fiscal manoeuverability of the government to be so irresponsible in the face of the economic changes we keep hearing about.

The Liberal government said one year ago that there needed to be fiscal responsibility. Fast-forward to today, and the money taps are open; it is an open bar. Here we are spending money again, $55 billion in interest payments alone.

That is something that should concern all Canadians, as should the the figures on the national debt. As a continuation of the previous Liberal government, the Prime Minister will add $321.7 billion to the federal debt over the next five years. That is more than twice the $154.4 billion that Justin Trudeau would have added over the same time period.

The Liberals like to talk up the central banker's resume and what a genius he is financially, but he is doubling the burden being left to our kids and grandkids to pay back. They think it is such a master stroke to just spend more money. Why has no one thought of that before? Why do we not just spend more? Why not make it $600 billion? Why not make the deficit $150 billion? It is because they know it has to be paid back through taxes or program cuts, but they do not care.

The Liberals are just trying to get through today. They just want to get through the next four years. They do not care about 40 years down the road, when our children and grandchildren will pick up the tab. That is why we have called the budget a credit card budget. The Liberals are running up the credit card, and they are going to hand the bill to our kids and grandkids, living large for today so someone else can pay the bill tomorrow. It is irresponsible. We would never allow it to happen in our own families.

I know you are a father, Mr. Speaker. Can you imagine buying a Maserati and a huge mansion, living large, taking three or four holidays a year, and then saying to the kids when they reach working age, “Well, kids, Dad's had a good ride. You can pay the bill. Thanks for coming out“? Of course no responsible parent would do that, and no responsible government would look future generations in the eye and tell them they will have to pay tomorrow for what the government does today. That would be irresponsible, and it does not even deliver the results that government members say it does.

The Liberals talk about the Major Projects Office. They keep announcing the winners and losers of the major projects. Instead of creating an environment where all major projects can be approved if they meet the regulations, they say that certain projects do not meet the regulations but that they are going to allow them to go through anyway. They are going to give an exemption to certain projects.

Oh, and by the way, all the projects they are announcing had already been announced six or eight years ago. Many of them are already being built. The Liberals say, “Look at us. What a fantastic number of projects there are.”

I do not even know what the minister's portfolio is, as it changes so often; I think it is trade relations with the U.S. right now. In 2018 he stood in the Maritimes and announced that construction would be under way at the Sisson mine. Then he went out again over the last couple of weeks to say, “By the way, the mine I announced in 2018 is on the major projects list. Aren't you proud of us? Look at it investing for future generations.” That is a scam.

The government fails to understand that we do not need it to pick winners and losers but to create a winning environment for investment in the country, for everyone to make their investment choices and make those investments, instead of an environment in which investors are fleeing this country.

I want to talk briefly about more failures of the government. The Prime Minister said that he would have a deal with the United States by July. We are at the middle point of November with no deal, and the U.S. tariffs are twice as high. He said he would have a resolution with China, but there are still tariffs on our canola and on our seafood. There are new tariffs from India on our peas. For our softwood lumber producers, the tariffs have increased threefold, to 45% for softwood lumber producers in my province of British Columbia, with hundreds of layoffs and thousands more jobs hanging in the balance.

The government has failed to deliver for Canadians. It has broken its promises. We will not support the budget nor the budget implementation act.

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

Mr. Speaker, let us talk a little about hypocrisy.

When the Leader of the Conservative Party sat around the Conservative government caucus back in the day, they actually had a deficit that was larger, when inflation is factored in, than the deficit that is here today. That is the reality of the 2009 budget, when his leader sat around the government caucus table.

Oh, how things have changed now that the Conservatives are in opposition. The difference is that the Liberal government believes in Canadians and believes in investing in Canada's infrastructure and the people of Canada.

Can the member indicate why today's Conservative leader does not believe in supporting Canadians and does not believe in the need to expand trade opportunities throughout the world for our businesses?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, yes, after the world economic and financial crisis, there was a big deficit.

The Conservatives got the budget back to balance by 2015. That was our record. That took a lot of hard work, because we believed in the importance of leaving a balanced budget for future generations. We did not want to increase the debt for them to pay back.

I am glad the member asked me a question. The last time he asked me a question in this House, I believe he was asking me why I did not support a consumer carbon tax. That is what he was on about. He asked that question of this side about a thousand times. I am glad he broke that promise.

Maybe he could keep the promise to keep the budget deficit to $62 billion, and what a big challenge that would be. The Liberals could not even do that; it is at $78 billion. The member does not know what he is talking about.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his passionate speech.

I strongly agree with one thing in particular that he mentioned. What the government is doing with public money is irresponsible. It is creating record deficits. It is increasing the debt even further, a debt that will have to be paid off by future generations. What is happening is irresponsible. My colleague put it well.

One specific example comes to mind among many. Collectively, this budget allocates $100 billion in tax credits to the oil and gas industry. That is $100 billion in subsidies disguised as tax credits. Not a single Conservative has told me that I am right. Given how passionate my colleague was in his speech, I have a feeling that this time it will work.

Does he agree with me that the $100 billion collectively being given to the oil and gas industry in the form of tax credits epitomizes how irresponsible the current government is being?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we do need to talk about the oil and gas sector and the benefits it brings to the Canadian economy, the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues and royalties that go to pay for such things as our health care system, our education systems and the transfer payments that go across this country.

We need to be talking up the oil and gas sector as a great benefit to Canada. We do it the best in the world. We have the best environmental regulations, the best workers and the best product. If we did a better job of creating a level playing field so that everyone knew the rules and everyone could make investments that were not held up by the government, we could have even more benefit for Canadian families. We could have more benefit, in terms of lower taxes and better services.

On this side of the House, we will always support our oil and gas sector in this country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly amazing, in terms of how the member reflects. The Conservatives also campaigned on the carbon tax. All he has to do is just reflect on Erin O'Toole.

Having said that, I am wondering if the member could provide a clear answer as to why the Conservative Party of Canada does not support investing in Canadians, investing in Canada's infrastructure or promoting external trade beyond the U.S. borders. Why is the Conservative Party not on board with those objectives?

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, we support investment in the country.

That is why, under a Conservative government, investments were up hundreds of billions of dollars, unlike under the Liberal government, with hundreds of billions of dollars leaving the country in the last 10 years. Tens of billions of dollars have fled the country since the Prime Minister took office.

We will take no lessons from this member, who has been a member of a party that has been for a carbon tax and against it in a matter of weeks. We will certainly try to give him a lesson on being fiscally responsible. He has not learned it yet.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the right-all-along people of Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

I would like to begin by congratulating my Liberal colleagues on their resilience. To be able to eat such a huge slice of humble pie and not choke on their own hypocrisy is impressive.

Nearly half the omnibus budget bill is just repealing Trudeau-era policies. For my colleagues across the aisle to have to admit to being wrong about so much without showing a single sign of humility really speaks to the resilience of Liberal arrogance. They admit they were wrong about the consumer carbon tax, the boat tax, the digital services tax, the capital gains tax and more, yet they still swagger into this chamber with the absolute confidence that this time they are right and know what is best for Canada's economy.

Based on the 600-page budget implementation bill, what the Prime Minister thinks best are massive piles of corporate welfare. Here is one example, from page iii of the budget bill: “providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying corporations and trusts for investments in certain clean electricity property”.

If any Canadians watching are wondering who the biggest investor in clean electricity is, I will give them a hint: It starts with “Brook” and ends with “field”. Last year, the clean electricity tax credit cost the treasury $22 million. This year, the tax credit will cost $1.5 billion; next year, it will cost $3.8 billion. By 2028, the government projects that it will cost $7.2 billion. That is 328 times what it cost last year for just one tax credit that will mostly flow to one company: Brookfield.

There is more. The budget is giving the Canada Infrastructure Bank $15 billion more. Maybe it is just a coincidence that the Clerk of the Privy Council was the former head of the Infrastructure Bank, but the Liberals are increasing its funding despite its failure to achieve its goal of using public money to attract private investment. We know the bank failed, because the government keeps telling us that it failed. Every Liberal budget has acknowledged the lack of private investment and the damage it is doing to our productivity.

The Infrastructure Bank failed so spectacularly that the Liberals created the Canada Growth Fund, with the identical mandate of using public money to attract private investment. In an act of corporate synergy that would make McKinsey & Company proud, the Brookfield government is leveraging the Canada Growth Fund to catalyze the clean electricity tax fund. In plain, human language, the Liberals are giving companies such as Brookfield cash handouts from the Growth Fund and then allowing the companies to get tax credits for spending the handouts. Companies such as Brookfield will get a shiny new asset to put on their balance sheet and a little spending money on the side. Canadians get a bigger tax bill and higher electricity prices.

I do not need a crystal ball to tell members that this is going to fail to increase economic productivity. It will not leverage, catalyze or spur any private investment; it will destroy private investment. If there were a real business case, it would not need subsidies. This means that any investment it attracts comes at the expense of real opportunities for growth. That is not just a fact; it is a basic physical reality. The Brookfield government can try to ignore reality, but eventually reality will hit it like a freight train.

Unfortunately for anyone who owns property between Quebec City and Toronto, the government plans to hit them with a high-speed train. Justin Trudeau launched the largest expropriation of private property in Canadian history with his gun grab. Now, even that legacy is not safe. Buried in the budget bill is the biggest land grab in a century. Canadians might be shocked to learn that when the bill passes, the high-speed rail line from Quebec City to Toronto will be automatically approved.

The Liberals do not know where the rail line will be built, but it is already approved. If anyone's home is in the way, they will expropriate it. They just need to delete sections 8 through 12 of the Expropriation Act to get it done. In fact, they are so confident in pre-approving the rail line without knowing the actual route that the government is amending the Canada Transportation Act to remove the ability of the government to amend the approval.

I want to remind Canadians that half the bill is the government repealing decisions made by the Liberal government. Now the Liberals want to tie their hands to prevent any future government from correcting this mistake. There is a big difference between cutting red tape and throwing all the tape out the window. If any of this sounds out of character for the tape-happy Liberal Party, we should not worry; they return to form on the next page of the legislation.

Again, with the bill, the entire high-speed rail line would be approved automatically and without an actual route. Then the bill states that the entire rail line would be exempt from the dreaded unconstitutional Impact Assessment Act. However, each segment of the rail line would be subject to the Impact Assessment Act. We can see where this would go, because we have seen it all before. Once the Liberals determined the route, they would begin expropriating the land; then they would find a turtle or a frog on the land. The activists and proud socialists would demand that the Liberals adjust the segment of the line. If it is a Liberal riding, the line would move; if it is a Conservative riding, they would plow through. In the end, the government would have to take some other people's land and those whose land was needlessly expropriated would just have to watch from the sidelines.

For a while now, I have wondered how the government was going to hit the ridiculous target of restoring 30% of Canada's developed lands to nature by 2030. One way would be to cut a straight line through the most developed and expensive lands in Canada, claiming it is for high-speed rail, then killing the entire project by blaming some turtles that are trying to win the Darwin prize.

I said earlier that I do not need a crystal ball; that is because I have a history book. We have seen this all before. In 1972, Pierre Trudeau expropriated farmland in Pickering to build an airport. By 1975, the airport plan was on hold. The government kept the land and, in January of this year, announced that there would be no airport, but the lands would go to Parks Canada to be included in the Rouge National Urban Park. The current bill would make the Pickering land grab look like a picnic.

The budget would give the unnamed rail corporation the power to issue stop work orders on any land it thinks it may need for the rail line. Once the government puts someone's property on the “maybe” list, it would have the first right of refusal for any sale. The rail corporation would have the right to issue stop work orders on any activity on the land, and the corporation would have the right to go onto their property at any time to ensure the work has stopped. In a normal expropriation, people receive a notice of intent, and then they have the option to object and a public hearing is held. Now they would receive the notice and still be able to object, but there would be no hearing. The final decision would be made by the minister behind closed doors.

Some Canadians listening to all this will think it has the makings of a second Pacific railway scandal. That would be delicious irony to fall on the party that gleefully tossed Sir John A. Macdonald down the memory hole, but erasing history has its consequences. If one of those consequences is the Liberals' sleepwalking into another sponsorship-sized scandal, then I am sure Sir John A. is smiling down on us. While I would relish the Liberals' paying a steep price for their arrogance, we also know from history what would happen: They would just walk off into the sunset of a corner office in a fancy law firm or a boardroom. It would be Canadians forced to pay the higher taxes to the bondholders. It would be Canadians forced off their lands during a housing crisis. It would be Canadians who lose the farm their family owned for generations.

When Liberals promise us a generational change, we should hide our wallets and lock our doors. The budget would cut benefits to veterans and students. It would lay off frontline workers. There would be all that plus billions of dollars in new debt for the biggest corporate welfare spending spree in history.

The Mackenzie King government ran up deficits to fight the Nazis. The Harper government ran up deficits to fight the global financial crisis. The Trudeau government ran up deficits to fight a global pandemic. The Brookfield government is running up deficits to reward its wealthy backers. Canadians cannot afford this takeover of their democracy. We need an affordable Conservative government now.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is apparently very clear: The Conservative Party and the Leader of the Conservative Party truly do not understand what it means to invest in Canada and invest in Canadians.

The Conservatives want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. They call it a failure. They would get rid of it. They have no concept. Did they know the Infrastructure Bank is responsible for literally tens of thousands of jobs? When we take a look at the projects that it has invested in, we see that there is an almost two-to-one return ratio. We are talking about billions and billions of dollars, yet the Conservatives stand back and say it does not exist and they are not aware of any projects.

They can do a simple Google search and look on the Internet. Investing in Canada is something the Infrastructure Bank has done, just like the budget. I am wondering if the member opposite would recognize that the—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government does not know the difference between an investment and a purchase. It thinks buying a Lada is an investment.

If we add up all the money the Liberals have spent since they became a government in 2015, when there was an actual surplus, it is $500 billion, with our national debt at $1.266 trillion. Each household owes $77,256. For any household that does not have the taxes to pay that back, this will be passed on to their children, including the students and children who are in the galleries today. They will be paying the debt we are talking about today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague on her speech.

I agree with some of the things she said. One is that the Liberal government changed the accounting rules. This criticism was echoed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The Liberals are trying to hide a deficit with artificial assets of $45 billion out of $78 billion. That is basically tantamount to trying to deceive people, at least those who have a basic understanding of accounting and finance.

That said, I have a question for my colleague. I do not understand the Conservatives' position. They told us that they would not support the budget if the deficit exceeded $42 billion. I do not hear them criticizing the government's policies. Based on what I see, this is a Conservative budget. There are cuts to government spending, cuts to the public service and 15,000 people are at risk of being laid off. There is unprecedented spending in the military sector. There are tax credits for oil and gas companies to the tune of $100 billion until 2040.

Give me a break. This is such a Conservative budget that Conservatives are crossing the floor to join the Liberals. I would like my colleague to specifically tell me what she does not like about the budget policies, apart from the deficit.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that there are 600 pages of things I do not like in the budget implementation bill, but he was correct about something in the preamble of his question. He talked about accounting practices. What the Liberals have done is a perversion of quantitative easing. They are simply taking expenses and putting them in the asset column. That is cheating, and any other government would be taken to task on it and thrown out of office.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question regarding the planned savings the government is projecting. It says it will save $48 billion over the next five years. Most analysts are suggesting this is wishful thinking.

Over the past 10 years, the government has tried finding efficiencies and failed miserably. It has caused an affordability crisis never seen before.

Should Canadian voters believe the government's rosy projections this time around?

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Canadians believe them. I know of older people who cannot pay their rent or electricity bills now. They are telling me that if this bill goes through, they are going to sign up for MAID because they are already depressed and do not want to continue living this way. They would rather die than suffer the way the Liberal government has been making them suffer.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Spadina—Harbourfront.

Today I rise to talk about my strong support for Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, and to highlight what this legislation means to the hard-working tradespeople who keep Canada moving forward every single day.

The trades are not just jobs; they are the backbone of our economy, the foundation of our infrastructure and the heart of our communities. In a country as large and diverse as Canada, skilled trades workers are essential in every region, from our busiest cities to our most rural coastal towns. That is even more evident in my own riding of South Shore—St. Margarets.

It is our tradespeople who keep our fisheries running, maintain our homes and our public buildings, and build the wharves, the roads, and the bridges that connect us. They support the marine, forestry and housing sectors that anchor our rural economies. From the traditional boatbuilders in Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, to the electricians and carpenters in Bridgewater to the welders and machinists in Liverpool, these workers are essential to our way of life, to everyone's way of life. They are the people residents call when a storm damages a roof, when a community hall needs repairs, when a family business needs an addition or when a vessel must be brought back to life after decades at sea.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, I hear directly from workers, unions, business owners and educators. We hear regularly about the challenges tradespeople face: the cost of living, affordable housing, the cost of modernizing equipment and the importance of practical, hands-on training opportunities to keep pace with new technologies.

Bill C-15 as a whole responds to those concerns, not with slogans but with real, tangible, practical measures that will make a meaningful difference for workers and small businesses from coast to coast to coast. Today, I want to highlight five of the most significant measures in this budget and how it supports trades workers and strengthens the industries they power.

The first measure in the budget is the productivity superdeduction. This measure would allow businesses to immediately write off 100% of eligible capital investments. This means that small and medium-sized businesses, especially the shops that form the backbone of our communities, can upgrade their equipment right away without waiting years for depreciation to keep up.

The second measure is the clean electricity investment tax credit. This 15% refundable tax credit would help businesses invest in renewable energy and energy-efficient upgrades. In communities like mine, where the economy is closely tied to the ocean, clean energy investments are not just good for the environment, but reduce operating costs and create new opportunities for trades.

Imagine vessel sheds and processing plants with solar panels. Imagine a small business with a battery storage system that can protect against outages during storms. Imagine community buildings, marinas, workshops and boatyards completing energy-efficient retrofits that cut costs while putting local electricians, installers and energy professionals at work.

The third thing I would like to talk about, and why I am supporting this budget, is the investments in infrastructure and climate resilience. Budget 2025 would accelerate the permitting of major infrastructure projects, something rural and coastal communities are desperately in need of. Faster permitting means less time waiting for more building. Who does not like that? Oh wait, maybe it is those across the aisle. There would be more work for concrete crews, heavy equipment operators, carpenters and marine construction teams. Who does not like that?

This past summer, the town of Mahone Bay became a national model in my riding when it received federal support to build a living shoreline that protects homes, businesses and public spaces from storm surges and erosion. This shows what is possible when different levels of government work together and when trades workers are empowered to bring climate-resilient designs to life.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

Ottawa

November 20, 2025

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that Mr. Ken MacKillop, Deputy of the Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bills listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 20th day of November, 2025, at 10:29 a.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ryan McAdam

Executive Director

Office of the Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bills assented to were Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (2025)—Chapter 5, and Bill S-1001, An Act to authorize Gore Mutual Insurance Company to apply to be continued as a body corporate under the laws of the Province of Quebec.

New Democratic Party of Canada

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians sent us here to tackle the pressing issues they are facing and improve their lives. They want us to strengthen Canada and create a brighter future for our children.

New Democrats are inspired by Jack Layton, who urged us to make Parliament work and to deliver results for people. That is because we believe Canadians deserve a future where everyone can thrive, not just the privileged few. We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work to make that vision a reality.

It is clear that millions of Canadians are struggling right now. Instead of offering solutions, the Liberals are demanding sacrifices from workers while handing out billions to the wealthiest individuals and the most profitable corporations. They are slashing services and cutting thousands of family-sustaining jobs amid a jobs crisis.

New Democrats are ready to offer a different approach, with positive, constructive policies to build a stronger country and a fairer society.

Act of Bravery

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the incredible bravery of a young constituent, Ms. Elaina Shay of Lunenburg County.

On August 22, as hurricane Erin passed by Nova Scotia, Elaina and her mother were visiting Hirtle's Beach to watch the waves. What began as a calm afternoon quickly turned into sudden surges, which swept a woman off of her feet and pulled her into deep, powerful water. Without hesitation, Elaina leapt from her chair, ran into the waves and lifted the woman to her feet, guiding her safely back to shore against the force of the current. Thanks to her quick thinking, courage and selflessness, a life was saved that day.

Elaina's mother, Jane Veinot-Taker, later reached out to our office to request a certificate of life-saving award in recognition of her daughter's heroic actions.

Elaina Shay is an inspiring example of courage and compassion in our community. We are proud to recognize her bravery here today.

Charitable Giving in Bow River

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as we enter the Christmas season and celebrate the birth of Christ, Canadians are reminded that this is a time not only of celebration and hope, but also of compassion and grace.

Across our communities, local food banks and charities are working tirelessly to ensure that no family goes hungry and that every child feels the joy of Christmas. Their work reflects the best of who we are, which is to be generous, caring and grounded in faith and service. Across my riding in Bow River, charities are ensuring that families and children have the support they need this season. The Wheatland County Food Bank holiday food drive is helping local families in Strathmore, while St. Joseph's Parish in Vauxhall is once again setting up its angel tree to collect gifts for the Vauxhall and Area Food Bank.

Matthew reminds us, “whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”

Let us support these efforts. Let us also ensure that government policy respects and empowers faith-based charities and parishes whose missions lift up the most vulnerable in our communities.

Organic Food Supply Chain

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I recently met with Riverside Natural Foods, a proud constituent company headquartered in my riding and a leader in Canada's organic food supply chain. Known for its MadeGood brand, Riverside exemplifies the innovation and collaboration that connects farmers, processors, consumers and the power of organics to link people to the food we eat and the planet we share. Riverside is growing by 30% to 40% annually and uses 95% organic ingredients, which are ideally Canadian grown.

A new national report confirms that organic production boosts farm profitability, lowers greenhouse gas emissions and sustains soil health and biodiversity, yet the United States spends eight times more per acre on organics than Canada.

I encourage all members to support the Canadian Organic Alliance and its organic action plan, which is a national policy framework to modernize regulations and grow markets.

Holodomor

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on the fourth Saturday of every November, Canadians join Ukrainians around the world to remember the Soviet-forced famine and genocide of 1932-33 called the Holodomor.

Joseph Stalin's Communist regime deliberately killed millions of people in Ukraine for being Ukrainian. Stalin wanted to exterminate their language, culture, religion and identity. After he eliminated the clergy, political leaders, academics and farmers, he then weaponized food. To grasp the scale of this genocide in Ukraine, we can imagine stripping bare every grocery store, home, farm, fridge and cupboard across western Canada today and then watching every man, woman and child slowly starve to death. That is the horror millions of Ukrainians endured.

Stalin and his Soviet thugs failed to Russify Ukraine then, and Vladimir Putin and his Russian barbarians will fail in his Russification of Ukraine today. This week, as we remember the victims of the Holodomor, we stand with those fighting for Ukraine's very survival.

May their memories be eternal. Vichnaya pamyat.

Courrier Laval

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the 80th anniversary of Courrier Laval, a fixture in local news and a key part of Laval's community life. For eight decades, this newspaper has upheld journalistic standards, remained close to its audience, and maintained its commitment to them, keeping them informed and bringing them together.

From the very first edition written by its founder, José Limoges, to the most recent edition, led by Martin Olivier and Patrick Marsan, Courrier Laval has changed with the times while remaining true to its mission: to reflect the reality of Laval and to highlight its successes, its challenges and the people who shape its identity.

At a time when information travels at such high speeds, local media remains key to preserving our culture and our democracy and bringing people together.

I congratulate the entire team on 80 years of service, dedication and passion.

Keith Thom

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Keith Thom lived his life with purpose. He left a lasting legacy in Peachland and for all of us who knew him. Known to many as Papa Thom, he could light up a room, whether it was through music or a smile.

As a dedicated municipal councillor and deputy mayor, Keith embodied kindness and service. He raised thousands for food banks during the pandemic and honoured our veterans, including his father, on his last visit to Holland. This pride showed in small gestures. At our last breakfast, he shared stories of retracing his father's steps in the liberation of the Netherlands, and he gave me this tie, the official tartan of British Columbia. I wear it today in his honour. These small acts of kindness were part and parcel to Keith.

My condolences go to his wife, Mary Lynn, his children, Fiona, Andrew and Rachael, as well as Charles, Alexander and Mathew, and their families.

I join the Peachland mayor and council in grieving. The district has suggested donations to the Peachland Food Bank, a cause Keith championed. Keith believed in giving back and lifting others up. Let us honour his legacy by doing the same.

Rest in peace, Papa Thom.