Debates of Nov. 20th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if my colleague heard my speech earlier or what we have been saying for days now about the crisis in the media, which has been going on for years. This government is well aware of it.

Private media outlets and private broadcasters are complaining about this budget, saying that there is nothing in it for them, even though they asked for very simple, minor measures such as getting rid of the shameful deduction for advertising purchased from American companies. This measure makes no sense. They also asked for the same privilege as print media, such as newspapers, with a tax credit to support newsroom payroll costs. There is nothing like that in the budget. These measures would have had no impact on taxpayers' wallets.

I would like to know whether my colleague agrees that these measures could easily be implemented now, even though the budget has been tabled, and whether he is in favour of the measures we are proposing.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I disagree with my Bloc colleague across the way.

I have heard the culture minister speak, even this week in question period, and we talk about an arts and culture investment of $700 million. We talk about media investment of $150 million to media outlets like CBC/Radio-Canada.

Our government is addressing the media and arts and culture, particularly in the province of Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, listening to the member for Cardigan talk about Prince Edward Island, members can tell that he is a very strong advocate, particularly for the eastern side. He made reference to the SeaRoots Alliance, which is a very strong organization from what I understand. It caters to a lot of people.

I wonder if he could share what budget 2025 does for the island, particularly for the SeaRoots Alliance.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 is about building communities strong, and the SeaRoots Alliance will have a new wellness centre in the town I grew up in, Souris, P.E.I. I played hockey in the old arena and the arena before that, so that is dating me very well.

This is an example of community creating new community builders. Those in group that spearheaded the SeaRoots Alliance, which has applied for funding for this project, are 30- to 40-year-olds with young families in Souris. They inspire me to believe that we have a future in Canada. They believe in Canada, and they believe in their community.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to the industrial carbon tax and the clean-fuel standard. I do not know if the member realizes the significance of their cost and what they are doing to add to the cost of living for such basic things as groceries and transportation.

Does the member have no concern for the residents of P.E.I. about the increased costs and the increased number of people who have to go to food banks just to get by?

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, of course I am concerned about affordability in P.E.I.

This budget puts lots of measures in that would address affordability. The other big thing it would do is invest in our communities, which is going to create well-paying jobs throughout the community, address unemployment issues and give our youth a future with new, successful careers.

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

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am hoping to be able to address what I believe are three or four really important issues.

The first is the issue of health care. I believe that the Prime Minister's and the government's commitment to health care meets the needs Canadians have from their federal government. There are things within the budget that show we understand and appreciate, as a national government, the importance Canadians put on health care.

Let me give a couple of tangible examples. One is that there is a $5-billion commitment over a number of years for capital infrastructure. That means a great deal when we think of, for example, capital expenditures in different jurisdictions. I for one think of Seven Oaks General Hospital.

The commitment provides a pot of money that is going to assist provinces in building our health care infrastructure, which includes hospitals. For me, that is a priority, whether it is upgrading emergency services or intensive care units, or just having a hospital, period. I believe that capital infrastructure for health care is noteworthy.

I also want to recognize that the budget reinforces the importance of, and the commitment from the Government of Canada to, ensuring that we continue to have a dental care program and a pharmacare program. We also have a 5% increase to the equalization commitment over the next number of years so provinces have a sense of how much is coming through things like the health care transfers. There is a significant block of money, going into billions of dollars, to emphasize the importance of mental health and to emphasize the importance of long-term home care services.

These are the types of things that I know the constituents I represent and, I would ultimately argue, all Canadians, have an interest in, and the budget and the bill would be delivering on that.

On the issue of crime, another important issue I have attempted to raise on numerous occasions, I look to the Conservatives. We have a pledge from the Prime Minister of Canada, through the last election, to deliver on bail reform for Canadians. The federal government does have a role to play in this. All levels of government have to deal with the crime taking place in our communities, and the federal government needs to step up. The Prime Minister and the Liberal caucus have done just that, and we are looking to the Conservatives to look at the legislation before them, in particular Bill C-2 and Bill C-14.

In the last couple of days, the Conservatives have talked a lot about extortion, but that is all it has been: talk. We want the Conservative Party of Canada to ensure that Bill C-2 and Bill C-14 pass the House of Commons, especially Bill C-14, which deals specifically with bail reform legislation and has the support of law enforcement agencies, municipalities, provinces and all the other stakeholders. It is time for the Conservatives to stop talking about it and serving their own political interests, and for them to get the legislation passed before the end of the year.

Another issue I want to spend time on is one that the Prime Minister and every Liberal member of Parliament have recognized as the primary one coming out of the election: the issue of Trump, trade and tariffs. As a nation, we need to recognize the value of economic security into the future, and the best way we can achieve that is to increase exports beyond the U.S. border. The government today is committed to doubling our exports outside the U.S.A. in the next 10 years, and that is the reason the Prime Minister is travelling and is meeting with world leaders to talk about Canada's wanting to expand its trade.

Let us take a look at the hard numbers. Canada's population makes up 0.5% of the world's population, but we contribute to 2.5% of world trade. Canada is a trading nation. Never before have we had such a proactive prime minister in searching out trade opportunities with a mission to build Canada strong and to look at ways in which we can actually double our exports in the next 10 years. That means jobs, which are so critically important when we talk about affordability. We want good-quality, middle-class jobs.

The Prime Minister is committed to travelling the world in order to increase exports. That is something that follows the commitment he made to bring in one Canadian economy so we can take down trade barriers within Canada. Then we brought in legislation to that effect, and we piled on to that the idea of getting major projects approved here in Canada. There has been significant movement in that area, not only in taking down trade barriers but also in looking at labour mobility in Canada, in dealing with major projects and in building a consensus.

That is what is critically important: building a consensus in developing major projects. Whether it is LNG in B.C., copper in Saskatchewan, nuclear power in Ontario or the advancement of major projects in Atlantic Canada and in my home province of Manitoba, in particular, the port of Churchill, these are initiatives that will make a difference for Canadians, all with the idea of building Canada strong.

How we build Canada strong, making it the strongest of the G7 countries, is by being prepared to invest in Canadians and in Canada's infrastructure. That is exactly what the current budget does, and that is why it was disheartening and disappointing to see the unholy coalition of the Bloc and the Conservatives voting against the budget that provides the type of programming Canadians need at this time. I hope they will revisit it; they can do that by looking at Bill C-15 and supporting it as good, sound budgetary legislation, because it will make a difference for every region of our country.

We are investing in children and in supporting seniors. We are investing in apprenticeship programs and in supporting summer youth programs. There is a great deal in the budget, investing in real people in all regions, while at the same time investing in Canada's infrastructure. This is absolutely critical in terms of building Canada strong.

The Prime Minister has an incredible background, an economic background. He understands how an economy works. The Liberal caucus is highly motivated to do exactly what we told Canadians we would do: build a stronger, healthier economy.

With respect to the trade agreement with the United States, we are not going to settle because the Conservative leader is jumping up like a jelly bean, saying that we want a trade agreement. We are not going to capitulate. We are going to take the time necessary in order to get the best possible deal for Canadians. If that takes more time, we will take the time, because getting the right deal for Canadians is our priority when it comes to the Canada-U.S. agreement.

On the issue of the deficit, I would point out that we have the second-lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We have the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. We are one of two countries in the G7, which includes Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the U. K. and the U.S.A., that actually has a AAA credit.

We are on the right track. Everyone should get behind the legislation. They should get behind the budget and vote for it.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is my friend, although I disagree with just about everything he said. He is a great defender of Liberal propaganda.

What the member failed to mention is that the Prime Minister made a promise that the deficit would not exceed $62 billion. It is at $78 billion. It is indeed a generational budget, because it is adding generational debt for our children and our grandchildren, which they are going to have to worry about paying back someday. What he does not realize, or at least talk about, is that we are going to be spending more on servicing the debt than we are spending on health care transfers and our military. All these things contribute to inflation, which is going to make affordability an even bigger problem here in Canada.

What does the member think about those issues that he did not talk about?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last few seconds of my speech, I did have the chance to bring it up, and I am more than happy to reinforce it. In terms of the deficit, we have the second-lowest deficit of the G7 countries, which include Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the U.K. and the U.S.A. With respect to the debt-to-GDP ratio, we have the lowest. At the end of the day, we have a AAA credit rating. We are one of two G7 countries that have a AAA credit rating.

If I had enough time, I would talk about the real dollar value of today's deficit compared to the deficit in 2009, when Harper was the prime minister. We are actually doing better than Harper did.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we have to give credit where credit is due. The member for Winnipeg North is definitely entertaining, and when it comes to drinking the Liberal Kool-Aid, that member is second to none. Someone should make a T-shirt with his face on it.

Having said that, I do respect his opinions and his point of view. That is what democracy is all about. I accept that we can have different opinions and express them respectfully. I appreciate that about the member for Winnipeg North.

Still, I would like to draw his attention to something he himself said earlier. He said he was surprised to see the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois join forces. He even talked about an “unholy coalition”. That is a bit rich, but if the Bloc Québécois and the Conservatives are on the same page for once, is that not a reason for the Liberals to be concerned and to wonder about the budget they tabled?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I asked the Bloc member the question I did earlier. When we really stop and think about it, the Bloc members talk a great deal about the arts community and how distinct the province of Quebec is. With regard to support for the arts community and what the commitment of the Liberal Party and the Prime Minister has been toward the development and promotion of the arts community, whether it is Radio-Canada or the CBC, the Liberals are far more supportive than the Conservatives have ever been historically and, I would suggest, would be in the future.

However, the Bloc members were quite prepared to have an election called. Why would they want an election when the government is delivering so much for the people of Quebec and for all Canadians? That is why it is a bit confusing sometimes and why I might sometimes say they are the unholy alliance: I do not fully understand why the Bloc would want the Conservatives to be the government of Canada.

I can assure the member that the 44 members of the Liberal Quebec caucus are strong advocates for the province of Quebec.

[Kent MacDonald, Liberal, Cardigan, PE]

Mr. Speaker, could the member for Winnipeg North address our building Canada strong and how it is going to improve electricity to all regions of the country?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think that when we look at building Canada strong and what it has to offer, we see that we are talking about energy, streets, bridges, hospitals and community centres. The government recognizes that to have healthy Canadian infrastructure, we have to be prepared to invest in it. By doing that, we are creating opportunities to enhance trade and so forth.

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my dear colleague from Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

It is always very interesting and very important to rise in the House, especially during the budget debate, because as we know, the tabling of the budget is a crucial moment in the history of any parliament.

I have received a lot of comments and talked a lot with people in Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis. I will not be telling members anything new when I say that my constituents are extremely worried. They have concerns, and they are also disappointed by what the Liberal government has presented. The only new thing about this government is the name of the Prime Minister. Everyone can see that it is the same government using the same approach, with the same people who were there under Mr. Trudeau.

The dynamic is still the same as it was during the past 10 years of out-of-control spending and not being able to table a balanced budget. Quite frankly, given the context and the situation Canada is in right now, the Conservative members were keeping an open mind and were paying very close attention. We were also worried about the current geopolitical situation, and we still are. We were eager to see what the current government was going to table.

All I can say is that what was tabled is totally contradictory and incompatible with the Conservatives' DNA, which is why we could not support this budget. I personally find it troubling that the members opposite did not rely on the wisdom of the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, currently the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry. He is one of my former colleagues from when I was in the Quebec cabinet. He once said that a balanced budget is a way to establish the government's credibility and financial stability.

Perhaps he should have been the one preparing the budget that was just tabled in the House. As members will recall, this budget was 18 months overdue. Canada was flying blind because it did not have a budget. The Liberals have used big adjectives to describe this budget, including the word “generational”. I would say that the only generational thing about this budget is the debt it places on our children's shoulders.

I want to talk about the deficit. The member for Winnipeg North said that the Liberals did what they said they would do. That is false. That is completely false. They said the deficit would be $40 billion. That was under the former finance minister, Ms. Freeland.

During the election campaign, they announced that the deficit would be $62 billion. Even that was unacceptable to us. Now they have tabled a budget with a $78‑billion deficit. That is an extra $16 billion. Can someone explain to me how we got to this point? That is not all. They are tabling a budget with $90 billion in new spending. Does anyone know how much that represents per family? That is an additional $5,400 per household.

This government's reflex to constantly spend money it does not have is detestable. In contrast, we Conservatives always remember where the government's money comes from. It comes from taxpayers' pockets.

If Mr. Trudeau's Liberals had not spent money like it grows on trees, we would have money right now, money that could be allocated to national defence to keep our country safe. A member asked a question earlier: Is it possible to spend more than Mr. Trudeau's government did? We never thought we would be able answer yes, but it is possible and it is happening now.

Now let us talk about the debt. Those of us on this side of the House are very concerned about the debt, as are our constituents. We hear a lot about it in our ridings. Under the Liberals, the debt has more than doubled. It went from $687 billion to $1.35 trillion. I do not even know how many zeroes that is. It is a very big number; it is huge. That is our current debt.

Debt servicing is a simple concept. It is the interest we pay on money we borrow. We certainly are borrowing a lot these days, because Canada is spending like there is no tomorrow. Debt servicing costs $50 billion. Believe it or not, that is more than the provincial health transfers.

Earlier on, the member for Winnipeg North was yelling about health care services and infrastructure. He said that his government was going to make investments. The $60 billion that will be spent on servicing the debt in 2026-27, which is just a few weeks away, is money that will not be spent on health care. It is money that will not be spent on services for Canadians. It is $60 billion flung out the window. That is more money than the provinces receive in health transfers. It is more than all of us combined pay in GST.

Every time we go to the pharmacy or buy a pair of winter boots, we pay GST. Every dollar of that is going toward paying down the debt. From the moment they let out their first cry, every newborn owes $30,000 in debt servicing charges. That is today's reality; it is as simple as that. The Liberals are the ones who got us into this mess. They spent money they did not have. For 10 years, they spent like there was no tomorrow.

One would have thought that the member for Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, who is a conscientious Liberal member, could have influenced the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. They did not listen to common sense. They did not listen to the people. That is how they operate. Today, we are left without one penny to defend our borders. On top of that, they have to borrow on the markets at exorbitant rates.

Despite the criticism, the Liberals have convinced themselves that everything is fine, that life is beautiful, and that everyone is in a good mood. That is not true. The criticism against them is unanimous, whether it comes from the English-language press or the French-language press, from Fitch Ratings or the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Is there anyone in this country more credible than that? Fitch Ratings in New York said that Canada's financial situation is poor, that the overspending is too high, and that it is not certain if it can maintain the current rating. The Liberal member spoke earlier about the AAA rating. Honestly, that is laughable; it is impossible. That is not coming from me; it is coming from the rating agencies. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told the truth so much that they started writing a job posting to replace him, because he is not on their side. Is that true or false?

We on this side of the House are disappointed. We are the voices of our communities. The Conservatives are not the only ones on our side. There are also people who think critically and who are able to provide important and credible analysis. These people are telling us that this makes no sense. That is why we did not vote in favour of this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, in my previous answer I provided what I believe are sound numbers, which say very clearly what Canada's deficit and debt situation is compared to the other G7 countries in the world, which are the most influential or powerful countries. Canada is positioned quite well on the debt issue. We are number one in the G7 and number two in the deficit situation. We actually have a AAA credit rating. We are only one of two countries in the G7 that has a AAA credit rating.

Does the member not see that there is a time when we should be investing in Canada's infrastructure and its people? Why does the Conservative Party not want to see a government that invests in Canadians?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will repeat what I said earlier. If the government had not spent money like it grows on trees for 10 years, we would have money to invest in infrastructure. We would have money right now to protect our borders.

I am going to read some of what Fitch Ratings wrote about the budget. It said: "[P]ersistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened [the government's] credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term." Fitch also wrote that "the Canadian government has a track record of upward deficit revisions", and added, "Given that these rules are non-binding and prior versions have been ignored, federal finances run a high risk of further deterioration."

That is not coming from me. That is from Fitch, a New York ratings agency.

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate speech. She is obviously listening to her constituents. There is no denying that life has become increasingly unaffordable. Mothers are struggling to put food on the table and families are suffering.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer and Fitch Ratings say that the situation is problematic. Can the member tell us what she is hearing about this in her community?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the member asked me this question. Food banks have never been busier. I believe that the number of monthly visits to food banks is now 2.2 million, which is double what it was in 2019. That is just off the top of my head. These are not the unemployed; these are working people. The people who are ending up at food banks are people who have jobs, who get up in the morning and go to work.

My office called a food bank in my riding. They told us that they cannot keep up. They said that demand keeps rising. Just this week, six new families came in and 20 new families have registered since mid-September. Available supplies are down, with a decrease of $82,000 compared to last year. There was no meat in the Moisson Beauce delivery this week.

What will those who rely on Essential des Etchemins eat this week?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is rather funny to hear the Conservatives say today that they are not in favour of the budget because the deficit is too high. I would like to remind my colleagues that Quebec's motto is "Je me souviens", or I remember.

In 2009, the Harper government ran a record $55.6-billion deficit. If we enter that number into a calculator and adjust for inflation, we get about $78 billion. That is roughly the same amount as today's deficit.

The Conservatives ran up deficits for six consecutive years, including the deficit of 2009. Now they are telling us that the deficit is too big and that they do not support the budget. My colleague says it is not in the Conservative DNA. I would like her to explain that to us today. When we see Conservative members crossing the floor to join the Liberals, is that not because this is a Conservative budget?

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there needs to be some context. When my colleague shares information, he should provide the full context. I would like to remind my colleague of something that he may not remember, since he is a young man. In 2008, there was a global financial crisis.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the budget today.

Just before I start, I want to give a shout-out to my brother Larry. He made me this pen. He has made me a few other pens. He lives in Chilliwack. I just want to recognize my brother for being a good brother over the years.

Let us get to the budget. I remember when the Prime Minister said he would spend less and invest more. He meant that in reference to Justin Trudeau, but his budget does the exact opposite. As the recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer discovers, it spends billions more and invests billions less than the Prime Minister promised just months ago.

I think we all remember when he was running to be leader of the Liberal Party and in essence running to be the Prime Minister. This is from February 19. He said, out of his own mouth, “The essence of this is to spend less, and invest more.” This is right from the Prime Minister's mouth.

This is confirmed by The Globe and Mail, one of the Prime Minister's and Liberals' favourite newspapers. It says, “The former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England criticized the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for spending too much.” We all know that, do we not? “Total federal spending has jumped by about 9 per cent on average since the Liberals took power in 2015 and federal workforce grown by 40 per cent”. This is right out of the Prime Minister's mouth: “It is clear that the federal government is spending too much.” He also said, “At the same time Canada as a whole is investing too little.”

That was the promise he made to many Canadians across the country. A lot of voters took him at his word, and it seems that just a few months after that promise was made, things changed quickly.

How does Mark Carney spend more and invest less?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to remind the member that he cannot use the name of the the Prime Minister in the House and should refer to him by his title.

I will let the member continue.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

How does the Prime Minister spend more and invest less? Even Justin Trudeau, in his last budget, projected his deficit for that year would be $39.8 billion. He ended up spending $61.8 billion just before leaving.

The Prime Minister led us to believe that it would be easy to do, and many believed that based on the out-of-control spending of Justin Trudeau. How could the Prime Minister make any mistake by reducing the budget? We all knew that Trudeau was an out-of-control spender. We knew the government was an out-of-control spending government, so we thought that it would be a relatively easy task. However, as we have all seen, the deficit will be $78.3 billion, and we have learned that it is likely to be worse. We have seen that over and again with the Liberals. It is a major broken promise and not a good sign considering that promises were made just a few short months ago.

The Prime Minister broke even more of the promises he made just months ago. Do members remember the fiscal anchors he was going to adhere to? The fiscal anchor that he promised during the election he would adhere to was the debt-to-GDP ratio, but he raising it. He promised to spend less, but he is spending $94 billion more, which is costing each household another $5,400 per year.

If $78 billion in deficit spending is not bad enough, the Prime Minister is also padding the number to hide operational spending as capital spending. This is from the Parliamentary Budget Officer's recent report. His new definition of capital spending “is overly expansive” and “expands beyond the current treatment in the Public Accounts and international practice based on the System of National Accounts (SNA), such as that adopted by the United Kingdom”.

After using a more accepted definition, the PBO found that capital investment spending was 30% lower than the Liberals claimed. That is where the $94-billion amount comes from. It is a $94-billion difference. Even the promises the Prime Minister made are false. In other words, his investments are much lower than he promised, $94 billion less.

Furthermore, the PBO found that the Prime Minister will not even balance the operational budget over the next five years. It is another fiscal anchor abandoned by the Prime Minister. That is a lot of broken promises in a few short months, and that is after he abandoned the Liberals' previous fiscal anchor of reducing the federal debt-to-GDP ratio. The PBO found that the debt-to-GDP ratio will be even higher than in the last economic update and that Canada “is no longer projected to be on a declining path over the medium term.”

It is a scary direction we are headed in. The PBO had previously warned in September that Canadians could be paying more for debt if the Liberals tried to change accounting standards. We know they have.

In the Financial Post on November 18, two days ago, was this article: “PBO calling out the federal government's fiscal approach should raise red flags for all of us”. Indeed it should. It states:

[The] Prime Minister...promised a new budgeting framework during the Liberal Party leadership campaign when he said he would separate the federal budget into an “operating budget” and a “capital budget,” with the operating budget being balanced within three years [total].

Tricks such as this are a blatant attempt to baffle people by transferring many day-to-day expenditures from an overall budget to a capital budget and crow that you are “investing.” The key to making it work is to ensure that the definition of capital is so broad that you can transfer amounts easily into the capital budget.

Again, if members and Canadians out there do not want to take my word for it, they can take the Parliamentary Budget Officer's word.

I think Canadians are wondering what the cost is to them, because they hear big numbers, billions and trillions. What is the true cost of the Prime Minister right out of the gate? He will add $321.7 billion in new money to the federal debt over the next five years.

[An hon. member]

Unbelievable.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unbelievable, as my colleague just said.

It is more than twice the $154.4 billion that Justin Trudeau would have added over the same period. Do members remember the quote at the start, that the Prime Minister was going to be better than Justin Trudeau? Well, here we are.

This budget adds another $10 million to our debt every hour. Under the new Prime Minister, federal debt is now $1.3 trillion, and interest on the debt will be $55.6 billion for 2025-26. That is more than the Canada health transfer of $54.7 billion. It is incredible. It is also more than the GST revenue the government collects across the country, which is $54.4 billion and amounts to $3,360 per Canadian household.

The Prime Minister said out of his own mouth that the previous prime minister was an irresponsible spender, which is why he lost his job in the first place. We saw that with an out-of-control government. Many of its members are still here, but that is why he lost his job and we all know that.

The current Prime Minister won under the premise that he was going to spend less and invest more than the previous prime minister. Those are some pretty significant promises he has already broken. I will say this, and I am sure the members across the way will have a problem with it: He is indeed out of control, and we definitely need a much more financially responsible prime minister. A future prime minister, I would say, is the current opposition leader.

Author Kim Moody gives a great summary of the Prime Minister's budget: “It's a clever performance, but, at its core, it's a deceptive trick, one that trades transparency for theatrics and leaves Canadians poorer for having believed it.” That goes out to all the people who voted for the Prime Minister. “Government spending—capital or operating—increases government debt in the same way.”

I would call on voters and Canadians out there to note this: The Prime Minister sold them the bill of goods that he was going to spend less and invest more. He is doing the exact opposite.