Debates of Nov. 24th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment my colleague from Edmonton Southeast for his excellent speech and his passion in fighting for his constituents.

The Prime Minister said that he should be judged by the price of groceries in the grocery aisles, while we know he does not actually go to any grocery stores. We do know that grocery price inflation is growing 40% faster in Canada than it is in the U.S. There was the shocking study out of Dalhousie University last week that said that 80.6% of Canadians tag food costs as their number one price inflation and pressure concern in their budgets.

I would like to ask my colleague whether he is hearing that from his constituents in Edmonton. What is his reaction to the budget and its lack of ability to address that affordability challenge?

[Jagsharan Singh Mahal, Conservative, Edmonton Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his genuine, common-sense question on affordability.

The Prime Minister has failed badly on affordability. Canadians have already given him an F grade on his promise that he can be judged by how much groceries cost at the grocery store.

That said, there are over 5,000 homeless people in Edmonton Southeast. I do not see anything in the budget on affordability for people who do not have jobs or who meet low-income criteria. I am not satisfied with the budget nor with the steps the government has taken. It has failed to take into consideration the people who are struggling with the lack of jobs.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here speaking to budget 2025, a Canada strong budget, and, specifically, elaborating on actions the Government of Canada has proposed to take on housing and infrastructure. I will share how the government is building on previous investments in housing by introducing more options for Canadians who need housing they can attain.

Federal efforts require construction and funding that can deliver. In response, the Government of Canada has outlined a comprehensive framework for moving forward, one that would accelerate the construction of affordable housing at scale. On September 14, 2025, the Government of Canada launched Build Canada Homes with an initial capitalization of $13 billion.

Build Canada Homes has a mandate to move quickly, marked by the Prime Minister's announcement of its first four investments and initiatives. It complements measures the government has introduced to remove local barriers, reduce development costs, fund essential infrastructure and incentivize purpose-built rentals. It leverages programs like the Canada housing infrastructure fund, the Canada community-building fund, the Canada public transit fund and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's housing programs, such as the apartment construction loan program and mortgage loan insurance products, to make projects viable.

Build Canada Homes is Canada's new federal agency, with the mandate to scale up the supply of affordable housing across Canada. By leveraging public lands and acting as a catalyst for modern methods of construction, Build Canada Homes is driving a more productive and innovative homebuilding sector. Build Canada Homes works differently than previous government entities by combining flexible financial tools, including low-interest loans, equity investments, contributions and guarantees. With land access and development expertise under one roof, it will make large-scale mixed-market developments financially viable and attract private capital and safeguard long-term affordability. The agency will work in partnership to reduce risk, address barriers and guide projects through the development phases.

By prioritizing modern methods of construction such as factory-built housing, Build Canada Homes will spark a more productive homebuilding industry, creating a steady demand for factory-built housing, which is expected to speed up delivery, reduce costs and improve sustainability. Working in partnership with non-profits, indigenous organizations, private developers and all orders of government, Build Canada Homes is accelerating the delivery of housing that Canadians need: faster, smarter and more affordable.

On November 22, 2025, Build Canada Homes released its investment policy framework, marking a significant milestone in its mission to accelerate the delivery of affordable housing across Canada. The investment policy framework establishes clear investment priorities, guiding principles and eligibility criteria, creating a more flexible, strategic and outcome-driven approach to housing development.

Under the investment policy framework, Build Canada Homes will prioritize projects that are ready to build, affordable and collaborative, with a strong emphasis on partnerships. Projects will leverage modern construction methods like modular and factory-built housing to cut costs and speed up delivery. Projects will also use Canadian materials to strengthen supply chains and support local manufacturing.

Through this framework, Build Canada Homes will leverage public capital to unlock stalled projects, will attract private and philanthropic investment, and will scale up innovative construction methods that reduce costs and accelerate delivery. The initial focus will be on shovel-ready projects that are financially sustainable and capable of generating long-term community impact, with particular emphasis on housing for low- and moderate-income households.

To support projects that deliver long-term affordability, sustainability and community benefit, Build Canada Homes will offer a suite of flexible financial options, including low-interest loans, equity investments, contributions and guarantees. Proposals will be evaluated on affordability outcomes, speed of delivery, financial viability and long-term community impact. The Canada Infrastructure Bank gets infrastructure projects built by leveraging private and institutional capital. The government will continue to leverage its expertise to find key strategic investments on a national scale.

In budget 2025, the “Canada Strong” budget, the Government of Canada announced its intention to amend the Canada Infrastructure Bank to increase the Canada Infrastructure Bank's statutory capital envelope from $35 billion to $45 billion. With this amount, the Canadian Infrastructure Bank will be able to invest more and more rapidly across its established sectors as well as in projects that have been referred to the Major Projects Office, regardless of sector or asset class, as long as they fall within the bank's legal mandate. This will unlock more projects with the partnership of private investment.

Budget 2025 also announced that the Canada Infrastructure Bank's target for investments in indigenous infrastructure that benefits first nations, Inuit and Métis communities across its priority sectors will increase from at least $1 billion to at least $3 billion. The government will work with first nations, Inuit and Métis partners to identify and support indigenous housing needs and priorities.

Richmond, my hometown, is one of Canada's most desirable housing markets. To help address affordability, the government created the housing accelerator fund to expedite construction. That fund is supporting the construction of at least 220 affordable rental units in Richmond, and the rapid housing initiative added another 25 units for women and women with children. I am working closely with the city to deliver more.

To streamline federal efforts and leverage development expertise, responsibility for Canada Lands Company has been transferred under the portfolio of the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure. As part of the federal government's bold response to Canada's housing crisis, Canada Lands Company's land and development expertise is transferring under the newly launched Build Canada Homes. This marks a strategic shift in how federal lands and development expertise are mobilized to accelerate affordable housing delivery across the country.

Build Canada Homes will apply a direct build approach to oversee and lead the construction of affordable, mixed-income communities. The direct build approach is one example of how Build Canada Homes will work to improve the availability of affordable housing for those who have been priced out of the market.

The Government of Canada has set out a long-term, comprehensive and flexible plan to make housing more affordable and accessible for Canadians. Build Canada Homes will change the way we build homes in this country. Bringing forward ambitious and practical solutions, the agency will not act alone. It will work in close partnership with developers, investors, manufacturers, provinces, municipalities and territories, as well as indigenous partners, to get housing financed and built. Build Canada Homes is an integral part of a broader range of Government of Canada measures to increase the supply of housing, make housing more affordable and accessible, and lead to transformative change in Canada's housing system. Its model exemplifies the work our government is doing to accelerate growth and help make Canada the strongest economy in the G7.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to let my colleague know that he is always welcome to come back to OGGO. All is forgiven. I know he left us recently.

One of the major platforms on housing from the Liberals during the last election was what is called the MURB, or multi-unit residential building, tax provision to build rental units. The government has not put it anywhere in the budget.

Why has the government broken the promise it made in the election campaign to reintroduce this tax incentive?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member does great work at the mighty OGGO committee, which I miss dearly.

I like the MURB program. I think it is a fantastic model where Canadians can engage, help, and be part of the solution to build more homes. With respect to how that framework works, there is still a lot of work to do.

I am happy to speak with the member across some time to talk about how we can implement some of those solutions to get the MURB program going, but if we look at the measures that have been taken right now, they are bold measures. They bring one entity together with multiple programs to help efficiently move these programs forward to build homes for Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend made reference to the Canada Infrastructure Bank. I love the contrast between the Liberals and the Conservatives on that particular institution. The member said it is a valuable part of investing in Canada. In fact, in British Columbia, there are at least a half dozen multi-million dollar megaprojects that are taking place in B.C. through the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Conservatives, on the other hand, want to get rid of the Canada Infrastructure Bank. They constantly criticize it.

I wonder if my colleague could provide his thoughts on why it is important that we support investing in Canada and investing in Canadians.

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Canada Infrastructure Bank does amazing work.

My time right now is being spent at the industry and technology committee. Every witness we have had at that committee has talked about reinvesting in Canada, and the Canada Infrastructure Bank helps us do that.

I can give an example: In my hometown of Richmond, British Columbia, there is a district energy project that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is going to fund that will be providing energy for 25 new towers at Lansdowne Centre, right in the middle of Richmond, B.C. We are looking forward to that project getting going.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot get enough of the member opposite since he left OGGO.

The Prime Minister, in this very House, stated he would have “declining...debt.” The budget they put out actually has $169 billion more debt than that of the previous prime minister, Trudeau, who was not exactly known as someone who would look toward saving Canadians' money.

Why did the Prime Minister state in the House that he was going to be lowering the debt, when in fact he has increased it by $169 billion over that of the previous government?

[Parm Bains, Liberal, Richmond East—Steveston, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the member looks at the plan that the Prime Minister has introduced for lowering the debt, it is the first time in Canadian history that we have seen an operational budget that has been split from an investment, or capital spending, budget. It was outlined in budget 2025, the “Canada Strong” budget, that $60 billion of operational spending will be reduced in the next five years. I think those are the savings the member may have missed.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois voted against the budget speech. In fact, 22 Bloc members stood up and remained true to their values and their word.

A month before the budget, we made it clear to the government what our expectations were. The government refused to discuss anything, negotiate or speak with us. It refused to listen to Quebeckers' concerns. The day we voted against the budget, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Minister of Finance and National Revenue used the word "mystified". They were mystified that we had voted against the budget. It was even La Presse's word of the week. Those folks are so out of touch that, for a month, they refused to speak with the opposition parties so, in the end, they governed by mystification. That is how it played out.

Not only did we vote against the budget, but now we have no doubt that we made the right choice. Following the vote on the speech, the budget implementation bill was introduced. We realized that this government's lack of transparency went much further than we originally thought.

In the spring, and with the support of the Conservatives, they passed Bill C-5 under closure, claiming that it was urgent for their major projects of national interest. We knew there was no urgency, that they did not even need to use it. Today, however, the 603-page budget bill reveals on page 301 how far this government is willing to go to circumvent Parliament and flout laws, regulations, and democracy.

Proposed section 12 states on page 301 that as soon as a minister thinks it might be good for innovation, they can suspend any provision of a federal law or federal regulation other than the Criminal Code. This is no joke. According to the budget bill, what was hidden from the public in the budget is that, if this measure is adopted, a minister could wake up one morning and decide to suspend environmental laws, transportation safety laws, and foreign policy laws. A minister can do whatever they want. It was not even in the budget speech. Reading the implementation bill, we realize that voting against it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Why did we vote against it? Allow me to give a few reasons. Quebec and the provinces asked for $100 billion in infrastructure over 10 years. That represents $10 billion a year, or $2.2 billion a year for Quebec. That is not a lot. When we look at the budget, how much new money is there for infrastructure over five years? Over five years, we have $9 billion. We need to take $5 billion out of that to build hospitals. As my colleague from Montcalm said earlier today, how can we build hospitals from coast to coast to coast with only $5 billion? That is what it costs for a single hospital.

In fact, new infrastructure investment is $4 billion. The Government of Quebec has done its own calculations and estimates the projected amount to be $22 billion over 10 years, which is consistent with our own calculation. Today, at the Standing Committee on Finance, we asked the Parliamentary Budget Officer how much new funding was planned for infrastructure. He replied that the government had not yet given him enough information to come up with an exact number. However, he clarified that this amount falls far short of the $115 billion requested.

It is one thing for the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to make the rounds of every TV network in Canada, exaggerating, indulging in hyperbole and putting on a show. However, the reality is that people were not heard. That is one reason to vote against this bill.

The same goes for health transfers. The one-off agreements with the provinces that the Trudeau government signed are about to expire. As a result, health transfers are going to decrease starting next year and grow at a slower rate than system spending. That means today, the federal government is telling Quebeckers that they have to choose between paying more Quebec taxes, making do with reduced services and increasing Quebec's debt.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government keeps telling the House that Canada has the best debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7, yet he neglects to include provincial debt. He counts the federal debt and ignores the provincial debt.

Under the Maastricht treaty, a country's debt includes the debts of its non-central entities. By no international standard does the government's math make any sense, but that does not stop it from boasting.

The government is telling the provinces that they should incur debt on Ottawa's behalf so that it can maintain a good debt-to-GDP ratio.

There is not a penny for the rapid housing initiative, even though Quebec is the only province with permanent social and community housing construction programs. What is more, Quebec generally does not receive its share of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation's programs, which is 22% of the envelope. We had asked that this envelope, which works for housing, to be refinanced, but there is nothing in the budget.

Instead, the government chose to create a new entity, a new bureaucracy, known as Build Canada Homes. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is going to be in on it, yet it is not even a bank and has never actually built infrastructure. The only good thing about its name is that it is Canadian. They are trying to tell us that this will result in faster housing construction, even though the solution already exists.

We called for the $814 million stolen from Quebec to be paid back to Quebeckers, but that is not in the budget. That is another reason to vote against the budget. The Liberals bought votes by using the consolidated revenue fund in Ottawa to pay people in seven provinces for carbon tax rebates that no one ever paid. Quebeckers contributed $814 million to the vote-buying in provinces other than Quebec, and the Minister of Finance and National Revenue told Quebeckers to take a hike. In the same breath, he said he was mystified that the Bloc Québécois was voting against the budget.

The 125 members of the National Assembly unanimously called for that money to be paid back. This included their Liberal friend Pablo Rodriguez, who voted with the Liberals when he was a minister, but then began voting with the Bloc Québécois when he became an independent member because he realized that he had never defended the interests of Quebec. There are 42 Liberal members across the aisle who are voting against Quebec and against the National Assembly, because they are getting their voting instructions from Toronto and Saskatchewan. That is another reason to vote against the budget.

There is nothing for seniors. The Liberals are the ones who created two classes of seniors. The legal age of retirement in Canada is 65. The Liberals boast about having brought the age back to 65. However, between 65 and 74, it is not good to be retired. People have to wait until they reach 75 to be treated the same as other retirees. This weekend, Le Journal de Montréal published a comprehensive report on poverty among retirees. We were asking for fairness. We asked that the OAS benefit be the same for seniors aged 65 to 74 as it is for seniors aged 75 and over, but the Liberals are mystified that we voted against the budget.

There is nothing for first-time home buyers who do not have a mommy or daddy or grandma or grandpa to max their tax-free savings account for first-time home buyers to fuel bidding wars in the real estate market. There is nothing. Our proposal would have cost about $200 million to implement from coast to coast. That is another reason to vote against the budget.

On top of that, we have to add in the Liberals' creative accounting. They are saying that FIFA games count as an investment. They are saying that recruiting military personnel is a capital investment and that expanding an early retirement program at CBSA counts as capital. They are saying that tax credits for carbon capture count as capital. I have studied economics my entire life. Either the Liberals are out to lunch, or there is not a single economist in Canada who knows what capital is. These are examples of current expenditures.

Furthermore, the Liberals are telling us that there will be a $78.5-billion deficit. However, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that there is a 7% chance that they will reach that target, because they would need to cut $60 billion over five years to achieve it. They have identified $10 billion, but some people do not even think they will even be able to achieve half of that amount. That means that the $78-billion deficit is a minimum.

If anyone needed reasons for voting down the budget, there are a few. Now, we know the Liberals' answers, written down on little cards by the Prime Minister's Office for Liberal members to read out to us like broken records. They say they are giving the Magdalen Islands a runway and building a shark pavilion, and then they want to know how we would dare vote against the budget.

That is why we, as an opposition party, worked out our priorities. The government had our priorities a month in advance but no constructive phone calls were made. The government has another chance, also known as the Standing Committee on Finance. We have six requests. If the government wants the Bloc Québécois's support, the committee stage offers another opportunity to include the demands of Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a high-level defence gathering at the Halifax International Security Forum.

In the budget, the government announced $81 billion in defence spending over the next five years. The member and I know that many businesses in Mirabel will benefit from this spending. I would like to know whether he will stand up for the interests of his constituents and their businesses and vote with us to support the budget so that the riding of Mirabel gets its piece of the defence investment pie.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during question period these past few days, the Minister of Industry has been rising in the House and attacking me, saying that there was money for defence and that I was working against my riding.

However, the Liberal government is causing the loss of 500 defence jobs in Mirabel because it is incapable of making any kind of decision regarding which fighter jet it is going to purchase. At L3Harris Technologies, between 500 and 600 people might lose their jobs in January. The defence staff, the army and several others have publicly said that a quick decision was needed. However, the government prefers to waffle and risk layoffs in Mirabel.

The Liberals stand here and tell me that voting for the budget will save jobs. What I am telling them is that they need to start getting out and speaking with folks. I met with representatives from L3Harris two weeks ago. Unions, employers and everyone in my riding can see that the government's indecision is costing well-paying jobs in the Lower Laurentians. That is unacceptable.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians, including Quebeckers, want paycheques that will allow them to make ends meet. Right now, that is a struggle and a big challenge. Rent and groceries are a burden every month and every week, respectively.

Does my colleague agree that the Liberal deficit is fuelling the inflation that is affecting the cost of living of ordinary people?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that Quebeckers need quality health care.

I also think that the most vulnerable Quebeckers, who are seeing bungalows in Mirabel going for $800,000 or $900,000, need housing.

What I am also seeing is that Quebeckers were robbed by the federal government of $814 million, which could have helped them get through the crisis on a daily basis. What I am seeing is that the Bloc Québécois' demands were designed to meet all of Quebeckers' daily needs. However, the government decided not to pick up the phone and negotiate. Instead, it has turned its back on Quebec. That is what I am seeing.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about issues of justice; it is in my nature. I put my question to Conservative and Liberal members, but I did not receive a response.

My colleague has read the budget, and I would like his opinion. Are there any sections in the budget that talk about investing in rehabilitating the people in our penitentiaries? Is there anything for prevention, so we can improve the situation and slow down the rising crime rates in Canada? That was my first question.

Here is my second question. A total of $814 million was gifted to people out west. If I am not mistaken, Quebeckers pay a little over 20% of Canadian taxes. Does that mean we paid 20% of the total amount? If that is the case, and the number is over $800 million, maybe we need to start crunching some numbers. Quebec is getting the short end of the stick here.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the vote-buying scheme during the election campaign cost billions of dollars, between $4 billion and $5 billion. Quebeckers paid for 22% of this total with their own taxes. That amount did not come from carbon tax revenues; it came from the consolidated revenue fund. I know it is strange to say it that way, but the tax was rebated in advance. That is how the program was designed in order to make it socially acceptable. Quebeckers paid out of their own pockets for a carbon tax rebate that was never collected.

As far as crime is concerned, there is a lot of talk about crime, about the issues and about what we see on the streets. We have to differentiate between fact and fiction. However, one thing is clear: I do not recall seeing any significant investments in the budget. It is all well and good to legislate, to talk about the problem and to speak out against it, but we also need to make investments, especially investments that are in line with the Quebec model and Quebec's approach to rehabilitation. As far as I know, that money is not in the budget.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise today, I would like to start by stating a fact: We live in a world of uncertainty.

All of the decisions that we are going to make, whether they are departmental decisions or decisions taken as part of a budget or government strategy, are really decisions that we have to make against the backdrop of a changing world. I speak of change, but I could also use the word “disruption”. We are truly experiencing disruptions, whether in our relationship with our neighbours to the south, at the economic level or in everything we have experienced recently. That is what I mean by the word “disruption”.

That is why I am rising today to discuss the 2025 budget implementation act.

I want to reiterate, as the Minister of Finance has reiterated several times, that this budget will chart a clear path to build, protect and empower our country, Canada. I have said it before, I will say it again, and I cannot say it enough: We are living in uncertain times. As we know, Canadians are going through tough times, with geopolitical turbulence, supply disruptions and, above all, tariffs imposed by our neighbours to the south. All of this is obviously putting real pressure on businesses, families and workers.

In this context, our government will not give in to fear or isolationism. On the contrary, our government made a choice. It chose to act—to act ambitiously, to act clearly and, above all, to act responsibly. Our goal could not be simpler or more important: We want to build the strongest economy in the G7 by protecting Canadians' purchasing power and boosting our capacity to innovate and prosper. We want to invest, but what do we want to invest in?

I will now talk about innovation, research and development. This is a key pillar of the strategy to modernize our tax incentive program for scientific research and experimental development, the much-talked-about SR&ED program. Why? It is because innovation is not a luxury. It is the very foundation of our future prosperity.

I am not speaking in a vacuum. I myself come from an academic background. I come from the field of research, of technological innovation. We know very well that it is essential for any country that truly wants to address the technological challenges that we are facing to respect research and development and to be forward thinking in that regard. I repeat, innovation is not a luxury; it is essential to our future prosperity.

Science fuels innovation, innovation fuels productivity, and productivity is what grows our economy long-term. The SR&ED program is already the most powerful federal tool for encouraging businesses to invest in research. It represents $4.2 billion per year and primarily benefits small businesses, which account for 64% of all claims filed.

Budget 2025 takes us further. We are enhancing the program by increasing the enhanced rate expenditure limit. This strategic move will help more innovative businesses grow, scale up and invest in Canada rather than investing in other countries. The additional $440 million injected each year as a result of this enhanced tax credit is expected to generate an economic output of $1.2 billion. That is a 300% return on investment for our economy. That is a smart investment. That is a responsible investment.

We hear people across the way talking about spending, but they clearly do not understand the economic situation we are in. This is the most critical time, a time to invest. These are investments with a 300% return for our economy. That is a smart and responsible investment.

Now, let us talk about the clean economy investment tax credits. The Bloc Québécois voted against a budget that reinforces the importance of investing in the clean economy, so it cannot stand up now and say that it is the authority on clean energy. That is far from the case, since the Bloc Québécois members voted against a budget that directly helps provide clean energy for all. I think that was irresponsible of them.

The government wants to have a strong economy within the G7, and that means investing in sectors that will shape the world of today and tomorrow. To support population growth, the electrification of transportation, and the increased development of artificial intelligence, a substantial increase in our energy supply is required.

Yesterday I heard the president and CEO of Hydro-Québec say that electricity use will increase significantly everywhere, in all households and organizations, and we have heard this in other provinces too. When we see a smart government acting proactively, as our government is doing, it is a credit to our country and to our government, and for that, we should all be proud. That is why tax credits for investment in the clean economy related to electricity are a welcome and essential measure for attracting major industrial projects to the country.

We are also extending by five years the full value of the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit, a technology that is essential to achieving net zero while maintaining our competitiveness. Finally, we are expanding the list of critical minerals eligible for the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit. When we talk about clean technologies, we must consider the major components.

During my speech, I spoke about research and development. All the research clearly shows that certain minerals are critical. Antimony, indium, gallium, germanium, scandium are just a few of the critical minerals eligible for the tax credit. The government clearly knows what it is talking about and understands critical minerals. This reflection cannot be done independently, but rather systemically, with interest, and obviously, it needs to go the right way. As I said, these metals are rare, strategic and critical for batteries, telecommunications, semiconductors and the green economy. By recognizing their importance and supporting their extraction, processing and recycling, we strengthen Canada's economic sovereignty and create jobs across the country, including jobs in our beloved province of Quebec.

In conclusion, this budget is not an accounting exercise, but a societal choice. We are making historic investments while preserving Canada's fiscal advantage. We are unleashing Canada's capacity for innovation. We are building a clean, productive and resilient economy. Most importantly, we are giving Canadian businesses the tools they need to succeed and create well-paying jobs—emphasis on “well-paying”.

I am proud to support this bill. I invite all my colleagues to do the same for the good of the economy, innovation, research and development and, most of all, for the future of our country and of Canadians.

I would not want to end my speech without mentioning the sports centre that the people of Bourassa have been waiting for for years. This budget will not only build infrastructure and concrete, but it is also building the future of these young people and the future of the citizens of Bourassa. I thank the Minister of Finance for this budget and I thank everyone who contributed to it.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the Prime Minister was asked if he had any contact with President Trump, and he said that he did not care and that he had no burning issues to discuss with him.

I think that is crazy. Hundreds of thousands of workers have jobs that rely on exports to the United States. I am referring to the forestry, steel and auto industries in particular. How does my colleague not see that the Prime Minister's comments are irresponsible, just like the Liberals' inflationary budget and its repercussions on the cost of living?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely grateful to my colleague for his question, which gives me the opportunity to address two very important points.

First, we are dealing with a President who changes his mind every day. Second, we are still negotiating. Our government was not the one that stopped the negotiations. That being said, have negotiations stopped? The answer is no. The Prime Minister of Canada is travelling around the world at the moment to diversify our economy and sign agreements with other international partners. The important thing is to support this Prime Minister and this government and congratulate them on their efforts.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the passionate member for Bourassa for his very interesting speech. He spoke about innovation, and he is right: We may disagree on how to go about it, but innovation is important. Speaking of innovation, the budget implementation bill includes a provision hidden deep in the bill, on page 301, under clause 208. The bill would give a minister absolute power to suspend any federal law or regulation—except the Criminal Code, thank goodness—without having to give any specific reason.

Does my colleague not think that this deserves a thorough review in committee, at the very least? Does he not think that this could appear to be an abuse of executive power? It is somewhat similar to what happened with Bill C-5. They claimed it was urgent, but the urgency of resorting to Bill C-5 has yet to materialize.

Does the member not think that this should give us pause and that, despite the need for innovation, the bill may be going a little too far?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, are we going too far? I would say no, quite the contrary. The member must understand that we are going through a period of disruptions and we need to make significant changes. This also gives me an opportunity to answer the question to some extent. Canada is still one of the G7 countries with the most competitive corporate tax rates. If we do not give the minister the power to assess interest during this period of disruptions, when will we? That is the question I would ask my colleague.

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

Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, Bloc members are increasingly being described as watered-down Conservatives. Quebeckers are currently angry with the Bloc Québécois because its positions often align with those of the Conservative Party. It voted against the budget, for example.

My question is this: Do you think it is normal for the Bloc Québécois to make so many decisions that are in line with the Conservatives?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I would remind the member to ask his questions through the Chair.

The hon. member for Bourassa.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the real question is this: What role does the Bloc Québécois play and what place can it really have in Parliament?

What surprises me the most is to see the decisions and positions of the Bloc Québécois increasingly align with those of the Conservatives in a number of committees, not just the finance committee. That really scares me. It bothers me to see that Quebeckers are represented by elected officials whose positions are so closely aligned with Conservative positions.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!