Debates of Nov. 21st, 2025

The House resumed from November 20 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone here is old enough to remember the year 2015. That was the year the Harper government brought the budget back into balance after successfully steering Canada through the great recession and when the New York Times congratulated Canada for having the world's most prosperous middle class. This was a few years after the Liberals tried to topple the government because Harper's government refused to run larger deficits than were necessary to steer Canada through the 2008-09 financial crash. He had run a disciplined government, one focused on core government services and responsibilities.

That same year, the Liberals alone campaigned on a promise to run what they called modest deficits for three years that would fund unprecedented generational investments that would boost productivity and allow the budget to balance itself. That was the year the Liberals destroyed the consensus that successive Liberal and Conservative governments shared: that deficits matter, that debt matters, that fiscal discipline matters, that productivity matters and that all of these things directly impact everyday Canadians and their struggles to make ends meet.

Here we are, 10 years later, and no historic transformational public investments occurred. During that time, the budget was never balanced and the national debt doubled. The amount spent on Liberal consultants ballooned out of control despite the federal public service increasing by 100,000 employees, while service levels for Canadians declined. The armed forces still have rusting ships, 40-year-old fighter jets, only a few dozen operational tanks and crumbling barracks and housing. The CRA still cannot answer the phone or give accurate information to Canadians.

Now, 10 years after the Liberals promised transformational, generational public expenditure to boost productivity but delivered the lowest per capita growth in the G7 and the OECD, they have tabled a budget promising the same broken promises recycled from 2015.

Let there be no misunderstanding. This is a credit card budget. The Liberals have tabled a budget, the first in nearly two years, that sets a new non-pandemic record of $78 billion in deficit expenditure. That is double the size of the deficit that triggered the resignation of the member for University—Rosedale when she was the finance minister. Do members remember that? Do members remember chaos this time last year and the consternation and hand-wringing over Trudeau's $42-billion deficit?

I will point out that I intend to split my time with the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

Let us remember the 2025 election, when the Prime Minister promised Canadians that he was the guy who was going to rein in public spending. The deficit in this budget is the equivalent of adding $5,300 of new debt to every Canadian family. What do Canadians get for this staggering new debt that every Canadian knows they have to pay off with interest? Is there any new money in this budget to pay for the so-called generational investments that the government keeps talking about? The answer is no.

This act we are debating does not contain money for transformational new productivity-improving spending. It simply grows the size of government. The Liberals keep saying that they are going to reduce spending on the operations of government in order to spend more on capital projects. This budget says these words, but this act does not do these things.

The main way the government plans to fulfill its unbelievable claims about its investments is through accounting trickery. Some might ask what is wrong with that if it helps Canadians differentiate between the administration of government and capital costs. What is wrong is that the Liberals' definition is grossly misleading. The PBO says it is “overly expansive”.

What is wrong with it is they are deliberately trying to trick Canadians into thinking the government is building infrastructure when it is actually hiring bureaucrats or connected insiders with consulting contracts or is dispensing corporate welfare and calling it capital investment. What is wrong is that the Liberals are not following internationally recognized definitions. What is wrong is that the government, which has done so much over the last 10 years to compromise its fiscal credibility, is now resorting to accounting trickery to try to fool Canadians and the finance community.

Ten years ago the budget was balanced, homes were relatively affordable in Canada, outside of Vancouver at least, and Canada's middle class was doing all right, much better than in its peer countries. Over the last 10 years, though, Canada alone among G7 countries and alone among members of the OECD, with the exception of Luxembourg, has had no increase in per capita GDP, none. That means that in Canada, we have been left behind by our peer countries.

The value of everything produced in Canada divided by all the people in Canada is now the same as it was 10 years ago, but during that time, the cost of food has gone up, the cost of housing has doubled and the cost of rent has doubled. The cost of living has shot up while Canadians' productivity has not, and as the Bank of Canada told the finance committee earlier this month, the productivity crisis and the cost of living crisis are the same thing. Canadians increasingly cannot afford to live because the government keeps growing, choking out consumers and absorbing more taxes while creating laws that chase investment out of Canada, leaving workers less productive than in the rest of the developed world.

The government spent 10 years passing anti-business laws that have left Canadians with fewer and fewer jobs in Canada's most productive industries. One full year ago, before the tariff war, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada called this a break glass emergency. She talked about how excessive regulation drives out investment from Canada's number one industry, which is the energy industry. Energy is by far Canada's biggest and most valuable export, and the government spent 10 years trying to regulate it into the ground.

There is nothing in this bill that would deal with the root cause of Canada's productivity emergency. There is a lot of talk about major projects, but when the Liberals talk about major projects, the government acts like it is having an out-of-body experience and has no idea who has been in charge of the government for the last 10 years and who introduced Bill C-69, Bill C-48, the carbon tax, the emission cap and a host of other major and minor acts that have chased $606 billion out of Canada to the United States, even before Trump was inaugurated.

For a moment, let us set aside the government's mismanagement of the Canadian economy, the fiscal deterioration of the national balance sheet that it is presiding over and the cost of living crisis that has been triggered by the government's overspending, and let us talk about fiscal anchors.

On a boat, an anchor is used to hold the boat in place. If we cut the line that connects the boat to the anchor, the boat drifts aimlessly until it runs aground somewhere. If the government were a sailor, it would be the kind of sailor who brings a new anchor on board the boat, a shiny new piece of equipment that it shows off to everybody, and then throws the anchor overboard without attaching it to a line that connects it to the boat. That is exactly what the government does, and it wonders why it is adrift. Fiscal anchors mean nothing if they are not attached to anything.

The government was literally only a few weeks old in 2015 when it broke its promise of a limited deficit. The Liberals pretended that it never made any such promise and replaced their 2015 election promise with their first so-called fiscal anchor at the time, which was that Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio would never go down. They said it hundreds of times in this chamber.

At the end of 2019, they cut that anchor, brought in a new one and said that their new anchor was our AAA credit rating. Then Fitch Ratings downgraded Canada to AA+, and in the COVID recovery, the Liberals came up with a guardrail, which was a maximum deficit. They blew through that and then went back to claiming that a declining debt-to-GDP ratio was their fiscal anchor.

This budget would cut loose all of the Liberals' past fiscal anchors and bring in two new ones: balancing operating spending with revenue by 2028-29, and maintaining a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. How much credibility does the government deserve with its history of cutting the line on its anchors? Based on history alone, I say none, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer did give the government a 7.5% chance of maintaining the anchor of a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio. That is getting close to 20:1, if the PBO is giving betting odds on the government's keeping this anchor. These anchors mean nothing when the government's operating budget relies on accounting trickery as well.

This budget would add $80 billion to the national debt at a time when interest is choking out all other expenses. That is unsustainable and unsupportable and the government is unbelievable.

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

Mr. Speaker, what is unbelievable is the attitude the Conservative Party has with respect to not wanting to invest in Canadians and indeed in Canada.

The member made reference in his speech to DND and military spending. Does he not realize that the leader of the Conservative Party sat around a caucus that left it at 1% of GDP? This budget would have 2%. How dare the member have any gumption at all to be critical of the Prime Minister.

We have a Prime Minister who is travelling the world in order to solidify markets for Canadians and for businesses. In fact, in the United Arab Emirates, we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars in potential investments for megaprojects. Does the Conservative Party support expanding our economy beyond the U.S. border?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, of course I support that objective. The problem is that the government has no credibility on executing any of the things it promises.

The government has been in charge for 10 years, and we have no significant upgrades on military equipment. The Prime Minister travels all over the world, and every time he goes somewhere, a week or two later the country he has been to imposes a new tariff. There is no credibility, no execution and no follow-through from the government.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I share some of his views, particularly with regard to the government's lack of rigour in presenting this budget, which really involves some creative accounting. Every member who stands up is telling the government that the way it is presenting the numbers makes no sense.

I have a question for my colleague about fiscal restraint. The deficit is very high. We are dismayed by it too. It is $78 billion. When it comes to the sound management of public funds, would it not have been a good idea for the government to cut subsidies to the oil industry?

The government is giving some $10 billion per year to an industry that pollutes and that is contributing to the acceleration of global warming. More importantly, this industry is very profitable and has absolutely no need of public funds.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the energy industry, and I support that industry as an economic driver of this country. I am appalled by the approach of the government to the industry. The government's approach has been to regulate it into the ground. All the energy industry needs is for the government to get off its back and allow private investment to return in order to employ Canadians in the highest-paying and most productive jobs the Canadian economy offers.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the credibility of the budget and the Prime Minister, which is what the Liberals like to talk about. There is a $100-billion procurement of submarines that the Prime Minister and the Liberal government forgot to include in the budget. What does that do to credibility?

We have heard the Parliamentary Budget Officer talk about a 7.5% chance of the government keeping its promises on its fiscal anchors, fiscal anchors that it invented after abandoning the fiscal anchors that have governed our country for the last 30 years. Can the member please comment on that?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer spared nothing in pointing out how terrible and how low the credibility of the government is. There is a 92.5% chance the Liberals are not going to sustain their anchor, so their anchors mean nothing and they have no credibility.

The member is absolutely right. The Liberals, including a moment ago with the member for Winnipeg North, claim that their budget contains generational expenditures on military procurement, yet it is not in the budget. They talk about procuring submarines without doing so. I do not even have time to get into the debacles of procurement for the armed forces under the government, but the barracks are crumbling, there is only a handful of tanks and we do not produce enough munitions. We do not produce enough of any of the things we need. Procurement is a disaster.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the government's budget 2025 and its implementation plan, Bill C-15.

We have heard this story before about generational investments, Liberal investments, leading to growth. We have heard this story because Justin Trudeau made the same promises 10 years ago. Budget 2025 is just more missed priorities, dangerous gambles and a complete disregard for the long-term finances of Canada.

For an entire decade, Canadians have been told to just wait, to wait for results and affordability. Instead of results, they have watched their paycheques shrink, their mortgages rise and their cost of living explode, all while the government continues to pat itself on the back for programs that have not delivered for Canadians.

Canadians watching this at home deserve clarity, so I will focus on three failures of the Liberal budget. First, the government plans to have endless deficits while printing money to bring back economic investment and growth for Canadians despite the Parliamentary Budget Officer's warning of even higher deficits ahead. Second, the budget mortgages the future of our youth, forcing them to pay tomorrow for today's mistakes. Finally, there is an explosion of bureaucracy and new agencies that spend even more taxpayer money without delivering results.

First, I will start with how printing money and running massive deficits is not an economic plan. For 10 years now, Liberals have insisted that deficits pay for themselves. The facts are clear: That has not worked.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, the independent fiscal watchdog, has made it extremely clear: The budget's deficits will average $65 billion over the next four years, up dramatically from last year. The federal debt-to-GDP ratio is no longer on a declining track despite the government's repeated promises. As well, interest payments, money that delivers zero services to Canadians, are projected to rise to over 11% of revenues by the end of the decade.

The Prime Minister is supposed to be a great economist, but this is not fiscal management; this is a fiscal failure. What is the Liberal government's response? It is to have more spending and more borrowing. The worst part is the clever accounting tricks Liberals have played to distract Canadians from their disastrous spending.

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, by trying to separate operational spending from capital investments, the Liberals have expanded the definition so far that they have included about 94 billion dollars' worth of spending that does not actually count as investment. This means that the generational investments that Liberals have been sloganizing are actually 30% lower than advertised. Worse yet, according to the PBO's definition, the day-to-day operating balance after their new budget would still be in a deficit position.

The Liberals continue to act as though they can bend economic reality to their will, as though deficits do not matter, as though inflation cannot rise and as though the PBO is not highlighting their economic sleight of hand. Well, deficits do matter. Debt does matter, and ignoring the warnings of the Parliamentary Budget Officer is not leadership; it is irresponsible and dangerous.

Second, the budget sacrifices and mortgages young Canadians. Every dollar borrowed today must be repaid with interest by the generations that follow us, yet the government continues to destroy young people with higher future taxes, higher interest costs and fewer dollars available for things they actually rely on. When he tabled the budget, the Minister of Finance said, “To the youth, this budget was made for you”. How exactly does forcing young people to pay for government deficits and soaring debt help them? The budget does nothing for the youth today, but they will be forced to pay off all the government's overspending tomorrow. Young people between the ages of 15 and 24, who are just graduating, are facing the highest unemployment rate the country has seen in decades.

According to an article, an economic policy professor from the University of Toronto said that we are “teetering on the edge of a recession”, which will “have a disproportionate impact on young people.” The youth are usually the first and hardest hit when economic conditions are weak. Beyond the job market, young Canadians are trying to enter a housing market that is completely out of reach.

Youth are watching their friends move back home, delaying starting families or leaving the country altogether to search for opportunity. They are not choosing these things but being pushed into them by government policies that have made life unaffordable. Today's youth are already facing a housing crisis, an impossible-to-enter job market and high living costs. Now the Liberals are saying not to worry; on top of all that, they get to pay for the Liberals' overspending for decades to come.

Conservatives refuse to accept that. We believe the government should leave the next generation stronger, not burdened under a weight they did not choose.

Third, the budget explodes bureaucracy instead of producing results. The cost of the federal bureaucracy has increased by 80% since 2015, growing by $6 billion just last year. Canadians are not asking for more agencies or more layers of red tape; they are asking for results that actually make their lives better.

What does budget 2025 deliver to solve the issues concerning Canadians? It doubles bureaucracies to do the jobs of already existing agencies. We can take Build Canada Homes as an example. It was created to work with other sectors and departments to make housing more available and affordable. There is one problem, which is that this already exists. We already have the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which has programs to finance affordable housing and was already tasked with overseeing the national housing strategy. Instead of fixing its failures, the government simply creates new agencies to hide old problems. It is duplication dressed up as innovation.

At the public accounts committee, which I sit on, we have received report after report from the Auditor General that have all been damning. The common thread in all of them is that we have too much bureaucracy and government overspending and not enough accountability. In all these reports, we see spending shooting way over the budgets that have been set out. We see no system of accountability, no progress tracking and no real consequences for poor management. The government promises results but delivers bloated bureaucracy.

The budget promises to bring federal spending down, but the costly budget will keep federal program spending at 15.3% of GDP. This is still higher than prepandemic levels. The government spends 55% of its operating budget on staffing and twice as much on outside consultants.

The PBO has already pointed out that a lot of what the Liberals call capital investments is actually reoccurring program spending, or ongoing operating costs disguised as long-term investment. This is not transparency; it is not accountability, and it is certainly not value for money. We have seen this before. The government creates a new agency to solve a problem, and the agency demands more staff, more funding and more time. Years later, the problem is still there, but the bureaucracy is bigger and more bloated.

Canadians deserve a government that focuses on results. We have heard from the Liberals that global conditions require higher deficits, that investment demands patience and that one more agency is the solution to the problem, but Conservatives believe in something better. We believe in spending discipline, not deficit addiction; we believe in empowering our youth and setting them up to become the future of this great country, and we believe that government should measure success by outcomes and not by how much tax money it burns through.

The choice before the House is simple: a government that treats the national credit card like an unlimited resource or a government that recognizes its responsibility to future generations. The budget fails on fiscal responsibility. It fails on the next generation. It fails on accountability and results.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has raised the alarm. Young Canadians are already paying the price, but the Prime Minister wants to make the bill bigger. The government's answer is to simply spend more. Conservatives reject that approach. We believe in restoring fiscal anchors; we believe in protecting the next generation, not mortgaging them, and we believe in a government that delivers real results and not bigger bureaucracy.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek gave a beautiful speech.

The word “steel” is mentioned 36 times in budget 2025. There are also big projects, such as $25 million for the YMCA, a project in the city the member represents. There is a lot for Hamilton in particular in the budget, and for all Canadians in general, so I ask the member of the opposition, why is he still not happy with the budget?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, YMCA spending is about $25 million. The budget is $78.3 billion. This is just a small piece. We have to focus on the big picture. At the end of the day, printing more money is not a fiscally good idea.

One has to ask oneself this: Is the current Prime Minister working for Canadians, the bank or Brookfield?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to share his opinion on the following issue with the House. The deficit is very high. The government could have increased its revenues with the digital services tax. Recently, there have been job losses at one of Quebec's largest private broadcasters, TVA. The government could have not only generated revenue with this digital services tax, but also invested in our culture and protected our media outlets, which are ultimately the architects of our democratic space, where we can stand up to web giants. Instead, the government decided to eliminate this tax.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government has driven a lot of jobs out of this country, including the ones the member mentioned.

I believe the government is not focused on results. It is focused on headlines and focused on selling Canadians big promises. I have said this since the day I got here six months ago. The Liberal government has been focused on winning, not governing the country. We are all waiting for a government that delivers results, not just headlines, and that does not mislead Canadians to push us into the next election to try to hold power.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the credit rating organization Fitch Ratings has warned again that the government consistently underestimates its deficits. If the government cannot even hit its own numbers, why should anyone believe the promises we have heard? Would you say this budget is based on math or marketing?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Direct questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have seen time and time again that the government does not listen to experts and does not listen to Canadians. The fact of the matter is that every time we debate during question period, the Liberals snicker and laugh on the other side when we bring up real testimony from Canadians and expert witnesses.

I think the Prime Minister thinks he is smarter than everybody and smarter than Canadians. We see him time and time again talking down to members in the House and Canadians.

Is anyone on that side, even in the front bench, actually listening to Canadians?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am going to assure the member opposite that every member of the Liberal caucus is listening to Canadians. That is why we have substantial legislation before the House. Unfortunately, the Conservatives continue to filibuster, preventing good legislation from ultimately passing.

We have a Prime Minister who is travelling the world to secure future markets for our businesses and Canadians. I wonder if the member can provide his personal opinion as to whether he believes that having the Prime Minister go abroad and secure markets is a good thing for Canada.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what the member just said was misleading. The fact is, we have put motions and bills forward, which have all been rejected by that side of the House, to help Canadians.

As far as the Prime Minister flying around goes, all I can see is that he is collecting Air Miles or Aeroplan points. We have no results from all this travel. It is time he comes back to the House and gives results to Canadians.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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

I am pleased to rise today to proudly represent the people of Beauport—Limoilou. It is the proudest and most beautiful riding in Canada. Representing it is the greatest honour I have ever been given. The people of Beauport—Limoilou are young families, workers and seniors who believe that we need strong leadership to build, protect and strengthen our country.

The budget we put forward is a true investment budget. It is a generational budget. I want to make a real connection between investments and expenses in a way that relates to Canadians' everyday life. Managing Canada's economy is a bit like managing a household. Expenses are the immediate needs, like groceries, clothing for the children and gas. Although this spending is essential, it does not build anything for the future. It just gets us through the week.

Investments help us prepare for the future. Investments include fixing the roof to avoid damage, insulating the house to lower the electricity bills, putting money aside for the children's education or putting money in a registered retirement savings plan to prepare for retirement. It may cost money today, but it protects us, it helps us grow and, above all, it will pay off tomorrow.

What does this mean for Beauport—Limoilou? It means modernizing our infrastructure, building more housing for our families, supporting our local businesses and protecting our communities. In other words, we are not just painting the walls. We are strengthening the foundations of Canada and of Beauport—Limoilou.

This budget is very forward-thinking. It prepares for the future of our children, our families and our communities. It is based on three essential pillars: building, protecting and empowering. These national priorities have a direct and concrete impact on Beauport—Limoilou, which is a dynamic, industrial and community-oriented riding that is firmly focused on the future.

In Beauport—Limoilou, building is not an abstract idea. It is a daily reality. Building means supporting infrastructure projects that bolster our regional economy in a riding where the movement of goods, the creation of industrial jobs and urban development are woven into our economic fabric. The budget supports the modernization of our critical infrastructure.

Building also means addressing the housing challenge in neighbourhoods such as Limoilou, Maizerets, Giffard and Beauport-Ouest. Our investments will make it possible to build more affordable housing, accelerate the construction of new projects and support municipalities that want to increase the housing supply for families and workers.

Building also means supporting our businesses, from small and medium-sized manufacturers in Beauport to innovative businesses in Limoilou, to help them modernize their equipment, increase their productivity and create good jobs right here at home.

This budget provides concrete fiscal tools to encourage investment, innovation and growth.

We also need to protect our communities. This is essential in Beauport—Limoilou, where we have dense urban areas, industrial zones and stunning natural heritage.

Protecting means including measures in the budget that will help municipalities and local organizations better prepare and protect their infrastructure and respond appropriately when needed.

Protecting also means keeping our neighbourhoods safe and improving our residents' quality of life. Federal investments in public safety and border services help maintain a safe environment for families, workers and local businesses.

Finally, protecting means preserving our way of life, whether it be the vitality of Vieux-Limoilou, the tranquility of the Beauport neighbourhoods or the easy access to the natural, communal spaces that make my riding unique.

Empowering means creating the conditions for success. In Beauport—Limoilou, the needs and ambitions are clear.

Empowering means offering our young people more opportunities for employment, internships and training. It means supporting organizations such as Patro Roc-Amadour, work readiness programs such as the Premières-Seigneuries CFER, Urbainculteurs, La Tomate Joyeuse and many others that teach our young people useful skills, help them gain independence and send them on to solid careers.

Empowering also means improving the lives of families, whether through access to housing, reliable public services or a more affordable cost of living. Thanks to this budget, more families in Limoilou and Beauport will have access to meaningful support.

Empowering also means equipping workers and businesses in the riding to adapt and thrive in a changing economy. Our investments will help our local industries, from manufacturers to service companies, innovate, train up and stay competitive. Faced with the challenges of our time, Canadians are not prepared to simply go along with whatever the future holds; they want to build the future themselves. This budget gives them the means to do just that.

We are building the infrastructure, the housing and the industries of tomorrow. We are protecting our communities, our environment and our way of life. We are empowering people in Beauport—Limoilou and across the country with stronger skills and more opportunities. Yes, we are making generational investments for a strong Canada, a Canada that moves forward ambitiously, confidently and with determination. Why are we making all these investments? We are doing it because the world has changed, because yesterday's world is gone.

In my last speech, I alluded to a great bestselling book that was translated into 40 languages and sold 30 million copies. Spencer Johnson's Who Moved My Cheese is a simple little book, 100 pages long, that aptly illustrates what our economy is going through today. For years, we knew where our cheese was, thanks to economic stability, secure jobs, reliable supply chains and what seemed like lasting prosperity.

A few pages in, we realize that the cheese represents what we are all looking for: security, stability, opportunities and quality of life. In politics, this cheese takes the form of accessible housing, a reasonable cost of living, modern infrastructure, a healthy environment and sound economic development. The maze symbolizes our environment, our laws, our institutions, economic challenges, the expectations of our constituents, unforeseen crises and rapidly changing realities. Like the characters in the book, constituents and decision-makers have to deal with an environment where yesterday's certainties no longer hold.

In politics, expectations change because of family priorities, demographic structures, the global economy, the labour market, the climate reality, the cost of housing, mobility and various other factors. In Beauport—Limoilou, this translates into constant, growing pressure on housing, a desire to better balance mobility, the environment and economic development, sustained demand for more accessible public services and a need to modernize infrastructure.

True leadership means anticipating what is coming and foreseeing change. Political leadership in a riding like Beauport—Limoilou means supporting economic innovation, modernizing infrastructure, defending ambitious policies, representing the community in challenging times and reaching out to citizens rather than waiting for problems to erupt. Deciding to act even when there is uncertainty is what paves the way for success and achievement. Political leadership means inspiring people not to be afraid of change. In politics, fear of change sometimes hinders the modernization of public policies, working methods and approaches to issues such as housing, mobility, the economy and security.

Modern leadership means acknowledging that change is real, but that we will tackle it together with clarity and ambition. The world has changed, and since yesterday's world no longer exists, the current budget reflects the new reality. For Beauport—Limoilou, this means that families are looking for housing they can afford, young people want exciting opportunities for the future, businesses need a more competitive environment, people want to reconcile economic development and quality of life, and the community wants a representative who is present, willing to listen and engaged. A leader's role is to guide the way towards a stronger economy, more efficient public services and a more stable future. We can no longer govern the way we used to. The world is changing, and the role of a member of Parliament is to help their constituents navigate the labyrinth of life with confidence, vision and honesty. Change is not a threat. Rather, it is an opportunity to build something better.

In Beauport—Limoilou, as in other parts of Canada, these measures will result in jobs, opportunities and a better quality of life. This is a confidence-building budget that represents real progress. It plans for the Canada of tomorrow while responding to today's needs. We are choosing to take action, which means accepting reality, anticipating change and charting new paths to growth.

The generational budget that was passed here in the House serves the interests of all Canadians. I look forward to taking part in its implementation, because I am confident in the future and I believe that this budget will make Canada stronger and more sovereign.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the budget does not include very many measures for seniors or young people. Does my colleague know that Canadians are struggling because of the affordability crisis? What is the government going to do about that?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to take a look at the budget. It does talk about seniors and young people.

For young people, there is the GST rebate for first-time homebuyers. That helps our young families. For seniors, there is the Canadian dental care plan. Both my parents needed that money to replace their dentures. I am sorry to mention that here in the House, but this measure really helped them. They were talking about it for six months because it was such a big deal. That is what we are doing for our young people and seniors.

The Breakfast Club is also receiving funding. This is a generational budget that prepares for our children's future because we are investing. As I said at the beginning of my speech, there are expenses, and then there are investments. Investments pay off later, for future generations, the young people of today.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I spent time with 60 seasonal workers in Grande‑Rivière, in my riding in the Gaspé region. Together, we realized that this budget does not say anything about EI reform. There is, however, an increase in the number of weeks for long-tenured workers. That is nice for them. They might be able to make it to the end of the year.

However, in my riding, people are seasonal workers. It is not their fault. It is the nature of the work that is seasonal, not the workers. These people experience the EI spring gap year after year. They work from morning to night, cracking crab, facing insecurity and uncertainty, wondering if they will have enough employment insurance benefits to make it to the next season.

Can my colleague listen to my heartfelt appeal and work with me to convince this government to finally address this injustice and ensure that seasonal workers in the Gaspé region and elsewhere finally get an EI system that works for them?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I myself am originally from the Lower St. Lawrence region. This budget sets out significant investments to help businesses modernize and retain their workers, and to enable workers to retrain if necessary.

My colleague is making a heartfelt appeal, but I am certain that there are people from the Magdalen Islands who would have liked their MP to vote in favour of the budget in order to move forward with work on their airport. This is something they have been asking for for a long time. It is important to be consistent.

Yes, we will be there for workers, but we must also be there for businesses so that they can retain their employees in the long term and offer good long-term jobs.

[Natilien Joseph, Liberal, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech.

Could my colleague remind the opposition of the fundamental difference between an expense and an investment, since there seems to be some confusion over that?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very important question.

The difference between an expense and an investment seems clear-cut. Some of our colleagues find this strange and say that these are not investment expenses.

For a family in Beauport—Limoilou, the difference is important. It means choosing to buy a less expensive car or a used car in order to set aside enough money to fix the roof and prevent damage. It means contributing to their children's RESP or investing in RRSPs for the future. Every day, families choose between spending money and investing in their children's future.

Every family in Beauport—Limoilou clearly understands this distinction. Sadly, some people are scoffing at the term “investment expense”. They say that these are just expenses, not not investment expenses. Well, we know the difference, and so do the families and the people of Beauport—Limoilou.