Debates of Nov. 25th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, and what it means for my constituents in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

First, I want to say a few things about budget 2025, a plan to build Canada strong. It comes at a time when Canada's economy is being deeply impacted by American tariffs. It is estimated that these tariffs are going to shave about $50 billion off our GDP, which works out to about $1,300 per Canadian. With this budget, we are focused on protecting the sectors that are most impacted by U.S. tariffs, including forestry, which is so important to my province of British Columbia. The demographic that is most impacted right now is young people, and this budget has investments that are going to create 175,000 jobs for young people.

This is a budget that is designed to spend less on government so Canadians can invest more. This will be done by reducing spending on government by about $60 billion over five years to create the fiscal room to get investment in Canada from both the public and private sectors. The measures in this budget are geared to driving $1 trillion in investment over five years to build the infrastructure we need as a country to diversify our trade internally, building on our work to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, and externally, leveraging the 50-plus free trade agreements we have around the world.

The budget has key investments, like $13 billion for Build Canada Homes so we have an agency to build affordable housing at scale using prefabricated and modular designs; $51 billion in spending for public infrastructure, with a focus on housing-enabling infrastructure; $6 billion in new trade infrastructure for things like ports; and an additional $10 billion for the Canada Infrastructure Bank so we are able to make important investments like, for instance, building out the pan-Canadian grid, which includes the investment that was announced last week for the north coast transmission line. Importantly, the budget makes buy Canada the default for any government project to ensure that Canadians and Canadian companies are going to benefit from it.

In order to implement the budget, Bill C-15 changes a few dozen laws, and I want to use the remainder of my speech to discuss several of the key measures in this mix.

First, Bill C-15 would get rid of a handful of populist measures that may have sounded good, but in practice were hurting our communities. Division 2 of part 3 would amend the Underused Housing Tax Act to end the underused housing tax in respect of 2025 and future years. The UHT has been in effect for three years and has the noble goal of taxing property owned by non-Canadians that is not being used productively and not being put into the long-term rental pool. To see houses empty during a housing crisis rightly causes Canadians to be angry.

This measure is having an unintended impact on communities like Whistler, where the municipality has zoned certain areas to be short-term rentals and has required them to be that way by covenant. In fact, the municipality has sought foreign direct investment to build up the accommodation capacity to welcome visitors. The end effect is that we are taxing the investors we sought for an objective that could never be achieved.

After several years of lobbying to get an exemption for this, including getting a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Finance, these measures have now been repealed. I want to say a special thanks to Barrett Fisher, Dave Brown, Louise Walker and so many others for making this a possibility. In the end, it was found that administering the program actually costs more than the revenue that it was bringing in. Thousands of Canadians were being caught in a filing requirement despite never being the target. By repealing it in its entirety, this is no longer going to be an issue.

Second, Division 3 of part 3 would amend the Select Luxury Items Tax Act to end the luxury tax in respect of aircraft and boats. The luxury tax was brought in to put an additional tax on boats, planes and cars. Again, this sounds like a good idea, because why would we not want to tax luxury goods for the rich? It was clear from the beginning that this tax was going to be a disaster, and to no one's surprise, that is exactly what it turned out to be.

Just as in other jurisdictions that tried this, people decided to purchase other items that were not subject to the tax, like an additional home; delayed the purchase of items; or just bought them from another jurisdiction. The end result was a huge amount of lost government revenue and a loss of jobs in Canada. This very much hit home in my riding given the number of individuals involved in the boat construction industry.

It also hit the tourism industry, because we are seeing less investment in the purchases of new vessels for such things as whale watching tours, water taxis and others. Since the budget announced that this would be removed, we have seen hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments that have been promised and companies, such as those in the aerospace sector, promising about 600 new jobs that are directly tied to this change.

Budget 2025 creates and extends a number of measures that would drive productivity growth in our economy, such as the removal of the ones I just mentioned, through incentivizing private sector investment.

I want to mention just a few. By making some changes to the Income Tax Act and income tax regulations, we are bringing in what is called a productivity superdeduction. This temporary measure would allow businesses to immediately write off investments in such things as machinery, equipment, vehicles, digital systems and other productivity-enhancing technology at an accelerated rate. This is incredibly important right now because we are seeing lower investment in capital and equipment per worker in our economy than we are seeing south of the border, in the U.S. Especially with the tariff-induced uncertainty, we need to do all we can to drive investment in improving our productivity.

Locally, in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we rely on small and mid-size businesses that depend on modern equipment. We are seeing that things like this can help support more snowcats and groomers for the tourism sector, more heavy machinery for the construction sector or more equipment for the clean-tech sector, which is a fast-growing sector in my riding.

Further to that point, the budget makes changes to the SR&ED tax credits to provide tax incentives for companies doing research and development. I have heard how important this program is from constituents, and how those investments have helped many early stage companies, including in Squamish's clean-tech hub, to get off the ground. The changes in the budget implementation act would expand the eligibility for what these credits can go to, as well as the total amount.

In the remainder of my speech, I would like to touch on an area in which I believe the government missed the mark, and that is with the proposed changes to the greenwashing provisions. Last year, through amendments that were brought forward and passed through the finance committee and that, in fact, were passed unanimously in the House, we expanded the false and misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act to cover the environmental claims that businesses make with respect to their operations in their entirety.

These changes now require such companies to be able to substantiate these claims using one of the many internationally recognized methodologies that are out there. These changes were prompted in part by some things we are seeing in our society, such as bus ads in which we see advertising saying that, somehow, liquid natural gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When this change to the law came into effect last June, we saw an immediate impact. We saw a number of companies putting disclaimers on their advertising. We saw other companies, such as the Pathways Alliance, taking down all of their communications, including such claims as that they are working to achieve net zero.

In the budget implementation act, division 43 of part 5 amends these changes to remove the requirement that this substantiation be done in accordance with an internationally recognized methodology. It also removes the third party private right of action at the tribunal. I think both moves are a mistake, but especially the latter.

While clearer guidance from the Competition Bureau on the acceptable methodologies would have been helpful, there are countless methodologies out there, such as ISO, ISSB, the GHG protocol and many others. If this measure is removed, it really puts the onus on government to finally finalize the long-promised sustainable finance measures, such as mandatory climate plans for companies and other climate-related reporting for businesses. Thankfully, the budget commits to moving forward in this.

The latter is the most concerning. In recent years, we have given the Competition Bureau significant new responsibilities and tools to tackle them with. The Minister of Industry's recent statement that we will be hawkish on competition further speaks to this, but with all of these new responsibilities, the commissioner does not have the ability to enforce all of them. That is why the third party private right of action is key. Things can take years to go through this process, and they are very opaque. The private cause of action already has a high bar to meet to utilize it, including that it needs to be in the public interest. Litigants cannot get judgments, and they can have costs awarded against them.

With that, I think it should be removed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the member opposite recognize that the luxury tax on planes and boats was a disaster for his government, because Conservatives had said that. It appears the government also understands that the consumer carbon tax was a disaster, and it reversed position on that. It was a disaster not to build LNG and pipelines, and it looks as though the government is reversing on that.

Does the member not recognize that the spending of the government over the last 10 years has driven up inflation? The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that it is like pouring fuel on the inflationary fire.

Would the member not agree the $78 billion announced in spending is just going to drive interest rates and inflation up again?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with many of the pretexts of the member from Sarnia—Lambton's question. For such things as the consumer carbon tax, it is one of the most economically efficient ways of reducing emissions. It is also a measure that was actually a Conservative climate measure. Unfortunately, it was politicized by the Conservative Party. Frankly, that is too bad for our country.

In the budget, there are major investments made to increase the productivity of our country, which is incredibly important given the economic uncertainty we are living in right now. We need to make sure we are creating opportunity for Canadians of all stripes, and particularly Canadians in my generation. The budget does exactly that, with investments in public infrastructure and in the kinds of industries that are going to drive our growth going forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague described this budget as an investment budget for the country. However, we can see that this is not the case in several important economic sectors, particularly for Quebec. I am thinking of softwood lumber. Since the government has not taken action on this file, we have no choice but to hold a take-note debate this evening so that we can discuss this economic issue that is so important to Quebec.

Why have the Liberals dragged their heels on this issue? They portrayed themselves as the people who would save the agreement and save the negotiations with the United States, but they have waited so long that industries in Quebec have started shutting down. They have waited until the eleventh hour. Now we need to hold a debate to try to save an industry that is very important for Quebec.

What does my colleague think?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, softwood lumber is a very important industry in British Columbia, too. Before the budget, we announced programs worth $1.2 billion to support this sector. It is very important to find new markets and to have new products that we can use in Canada and sell to the world.

I think this evening's debate is a good way to look at how we can do more. However, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has already said that there will be more measures soon. I think these measures will make a big difference to British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick and the other provinces.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly a strong champion in the rural caucus of the Liberal Party, and I know he does great work in British Columbia.

I could not help but think, as I looked through the budget, about the emphasis on trade opportunities in the South Pacific. Our Minister of International Trade was involved, alongside the Prime Minister and the government, in securing trade access with Indonesia. Trade dynamics have opened up with Thailand. There is a big emphasis on port infrastructure. Certainly, in the engagement we have had with the PRC, there has been the establishment of the approved destination status, which is important for Chinese tourism. I know that it is particularly important in his home province of British Columbia.

I am wondering if the member can opine on any of what I just laid out around trade, the work this government is doing to build relationships around the world and the importance of that. We hear from the opposition benches that they do not want this government getting outside the country to actually engage. Maybe he can provide some comment on that.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we certainly need to invest in our trade infrastructure. There is a deepwater port in my riding in Squamish, and we need to make sure we can access these new markets, get more free trade agreements and find alternative markets to the U.S. That is really critical.

As we are building these relationships, it is not just selling to new markets, but it is also making sure we can bring in new tourists. The new change to have group travel coming from China is massive, because that is one of the biggest markets for our country, with some of the biggest spenders. That will be really critical for our local economy.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, there is an age-old question in business classes: How much does a bottle of water cost? In a grocery store, it is about 25¢. At a restaurant, it is about $2.50. In an airport, it is $5. If someone was at a salmon festival in Newfoundland, it was 30°C and they ran out of water, they would have to pay $10 for a bottle of water passed through the fence. If someone was in the desert, in the heat, three days without water, I would say they would give their left kidney for a bottle of water.

The point is this: The more scarce something is, the more valuable it is. The reverse of that is true: The more abundant something is, the less valuable it is. It would be nearly impossible to sell a bottle of water next to a cold spring. The bottle of water is effectively worthless.

We do not really buy and sell things in this country; we trade. Those are arbitrary terms for trade. We trade products for currency. We trade one bottle of water for $1. We trade a vehicle for thousands of dollars. It is like the famous game of Catan, in which players have to trade resources to complete tasks. If there is a lot of wheat, players may pay four wheat cards to get one brick, but if the game is reversed, they may use four brick cards to get one wheat. It is supply and demand; it is Economics 101.

What happens when our dollar, our currency, loses its scarcity? It loses value. If we simplify our economy down to five loaves and $5, every loaf is worth $1. However, if we have five loaves and $500, every loaf is now worth the high price of $100. Is the bread really worth more? It is the same loaf, and it tastes the same; it is just that the currency is worth less. The baker cannot take his $100 and buy a new pair of shoes. In this hypothetical inflation, that new $100 can probably buy only a dozen eggs. A dozen eggs is still worth only one loaf of bread.

Members may say that eggs will never go that high. I will tell members this: In 1925, a dozen eggs was just 47¢. Now, it is $4.70. That is a 100% increase. The egg is still the same: same size, same taste, same egg. In fact, if the dollar never lost its value over time, the egg should actually be cheaper. because the farming industry has become more efficient and able to produce more eggs with fewer resources. Why did some eggs increase from 47¢ to $4.70? It is because our dollar is worth less. In 1925, $1 could get someone two dozen eggs. Now, $1 can only get someone about three eggs.

Why did the value of our currency drop? It dropped from overspending. The government does not have money. It spends money collected from taxes, but once it spends what is collected, it borrows or prints the money. This is where the problem comes from.

Throughout most of history, currency was actually gold and silver coins. They were hard to mobilize and easy for others to steal, so banks suggested we give them money, which they would secure. The banks would then give banknotes in lieu, which could be used to trade products. That was called gold-backed currency or, as we call it, the gold standard. That system worked until banks and governments realized that they could loan more money and even print money if they removed the gold standard.

Now our money is backed by a promise, a simple promise, a promise we make as Canadians to each other, a promise that we will accept a piece of paper as a trading token. The only problem we have is that the value of the trading token can simply be changed by increasing the amount in circulation.

What is the harm of printing money and causing inflation? If someone is a business person, perhaps an executive with Brookfield Asset Management or a trust fund baby such as Justin Trudeau, inflation means no more than water on a duck's back. They do not have fixed salaries; they have business incomes, and they are protected by their assets. If someone is an average Joe and gets a 1% raise at work, they are excited, but if inflation was 3%, that means the values of their wage went down by 3%, so they just got robbed. They actually got a 2% pay cut. However, if someone owns their own company with 3% inflation, they can simply put their prices up to match inflation without losing a cent. In fact, they can get on the news and convince the average Joe that they should invest in their companies because they have had record-breaking profits. We see this in the grocery stores.

Inflation is good for rich people in this country who are backed by assets. The average Joe puts money in a savings account. We get excited when we make 2% interest on our savings, but if inflation is 3%, we actually lose 1%. The rich keep their savings not in a bank account but in assets, so when inflation is raised to 3%, it is no big deal. Their real estate portfolio just increases as well.

I have heard our Conservative leader say over and over again that inflation is the cruellest form of taxation. It taxes the poor without them even knowing it. Nobody comes into the House, puts forth a bill and votes on it. They simply go to the boardrooms and make quiet decisions to make our money worth less. It is a slap in the face when governments get up and say that it is giving a 1% tax cut to 22 million Canadians while Canadians are losing 1.7% in inflation. The government just taxed us an extra 0.7% without us even knowing it. Someone making $60,000 in a year just lost 0.7%, or $420 in hidden inflationary taxes. They just lost 1.7% on all their savings. That, my friends, is exactly why the cost of living is going up and why we cannot afford the same things anymore. The Liberals have been borrowing and printing money, circulating billions more. We have seen this a lot in the past 10 years.

Since 2019 alone, the Canadian dollar has lost 16% of its value. Did Canadians at home get a 16% wage increase? It is not likely for many of us. Surprisingly, housing costs have not gone up in Canada compared with the price of gold. The average price of a home today is the same as it was in the early 1980s. If we had used a gold-backed currency that could not be devalued by money printing, houses would still be the same price today.

That is why the Conservative Party does not believe in budgets that balance themselves. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We need budgets that are not filled with generational debt and inflation. I am not looking to hold the Liberals to Conservative promises. I want to hold them accountable to Liberal promises. The Liberals ran a campaign on bringing in a fancy banker who was going to bring fiscal responsibility to the nation and save us by only having a $62-billion deficit.

However, here we are at a $78-billion deficit. The entire country's debt right now is at $1.3 trillion. We spend more money in interest, servicing this debt, than we pay out in health care payments to all the provinces right across this country. We spend more money servicing this debt right across this country than we get in GST revenues. Every time we go to the store and pay GST on something, it is just covering the cost of the interest on this $1.3-trillion debt.

Where did the Liberals decide to cut? They decided to cut $4 billion in the next few years from Veterans Affairs, the department that supports the people who fought for this country. Veterans are the reason we have our freedoms. It is disappointing and disgraceful. Even with those disgraceful cuts, the Liberals plan on adding another $300 billion in the next five years, totalling $1.6 trillion.

I travel across my district, and the wharves are deplorable. In fact, wharves right across Newfoundland and Labrador are deplorable. The Conservatives promised to double infrastructure spending for small craft harbours, but the Liberals decided they had to outdo us, so they promised to triple it. This budget comes nowhere close to doing that.

Then the Liberals promised national building projects right across this country. Almost every province got one except Newfoundland and Labrador. There was only one in Atlantic Canada, in fact. It was for Nova Scotia to build wind turbines. There was nothing for P.E.I., nothing for New Brunswick and nothing for my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have massive opportunities in gold and critical minerals through mining, critical minerals we need for Canadian sovereignty. We have massive oil and gas resources, massive potential in hydroelectricity and multi-billion dollar fabrication sites sitting idle, yet not one project was announced.

I cannot support the Liberal budget because the Liberal budget does not support Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that Memorial University has a great program in civil engineering. However, I would encourage the member to go back and get an economics degree from Memorial, because that was an interesting lesson in talking about examples without understanding that we are in a global economy. It was a cute speech in that sense but, in terms of its actual practicality, not very valuable to members of the House.

There are a few things I need to correct the record on.

On Veterans Affairs, we are not cutting $4 billion. That is an outright misconception the member is putting into the House.

We are changing the cannabis policy from $8.50 a gram down to $6. Is that really something that he is against as we try to find efficiencies? I do not think so.

In terms of the Sisson mine, that is a major project in New Brunswick. He seemed to gloss over that. In relation to projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, he should call his friend Premier Wakeham and ask him what he is putting before the House and what we are going to be working on. The member just—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have to give the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas a chance to respond.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

You are cutting money to Veterans Affairs—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

On a point of order, I would like to know more about your cutting of services, Mr. Speaker, to Veterans Affairs.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

My biography is available online for the chief government whip to look at.

I will let the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, through the Chair, respond.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I know you would never cut spending to Veterans Affairs.

I want to bring up this question: Why make the cuts to Veterans Affairs? Why not use the money to support veterans, rather than asking them if they would rather die when they are on the phone asking for help?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about inflation.

The very high cost of energy is one of the causes of inflation. High energy costs are often caused by the huge profits that folks in the oil sector are making, not by carbon pricing. For example, from 2021 to 2024, they raked in a record-setting $131 billion. During that same period, those people, most of whom are connected to American companies, paid themselves about $80 billion in dividends. That means $10 billion a year leaves Canada and goes directly to the United States as dividends.

When my colleague looks at the oil and gas sector, does he not see it as a source of shame rather than a source of pride for Canada?

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Quebec raised some good points.

Newfoundland and Labrador is doing the right thing. Newfoundland Labrador Hydro has a subsidy called Newfoundland OilCo. It has equity, sometimes up to 8% or 10%, in our offshore oil and gas industry so we can make sure Newfoundlanders and Canadians are getting a good cut and a good, fair percentage of that. It keeps our Newfoundlanders at work. It keeps our Canadians at work. We make billions of dollars off oil and gas in our province. Twenty-five per cent of Newfoundland's GDP comes from oil and gas, so when Conservatives promised to double oil and gas production in Newfoundland and Labrador, it would have added an extra 25% to our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague, a fellow engineer, talk about all the money that should have been spent in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I agree.

I would like him to comment on the amount of money the Prime Minister is giving to other countries instead of putting Canadians first.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I would love for the Liberals to give us an actual number for how much money is fleeing to other countries. I saw a video this morning on Instagram talking about how the Prime Minister was in another country saying that there would be trillions of dollars going to Europe. That just blows our minds. We have seen trillions of dollars going to Donald Trump in the United States.

I do not understand why we are not putting that money in Canada, putting Canada first and actually building Canada strong.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I realize this member is new, so he probably is unaware of the fact that it was Stephen Harper who made massive cuts to veterans' services, including nine offices. Also, he was not here when the Leader of the Opposition went on and on about how removing the carbon tax would fix all the inflationary problems, neglecting the fact that they are totally driven by global forces.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Order. There is crosstalking going on and I cannot hear myself.

The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.

[Jonathan Rowe, Conservative, Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will tell the country what was not happening when Stephen Harper was in government. Veterans were not calling Veterans Affairs begging for assistance and being asked if they would rather die with our MAID program. That was not happening under Stephen Harper's government. That would not happen under a Conservative government.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today as the federal representative for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas to speak in support of the implementation of a new budget for Canada, a pivotal investment in the future of our great country.

We are living through a fundamental shift in global trade, global alliances and the global economy. For decades, Canada and our democratic allies around the world relied on stable, predictable international trade partners. Today, that world no longer exists. Our largest trading partner is governed by an increasingly hostile and unpredictable administration. The Trump administration has not hesitated to illegally target Canadian industries, Canadian workers and Canada's national interests for its own short-term political gains.

In a moment like this, Canada cannot afford to stand still. We must take action to defend not only our economic prosperity but also our national sovereignty and very way of life. That is why the government is taking decisive action. We are taking action to protect our economic sovereignty and way of life because we believe fundamentally in the unity and strength of the Canadian people. As the Prime Minister said, we must take control of our own destiny.

This budget implementation act does exactly that. At its core, it has three clear priorities: to build, to protect and to empower. Canada's economic fundamentals remain the strongest in the G7 and in the world. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7. Employment growth remains steady, adding 67,000 new jobs in October and 60,000 the month before that. Canada continues to be one of the safest, most stable jurisdictions for business investments in the G7. The Canadian economy is well positioned for the future, but only if we act now.

For the first time, the budget makes a clear, important distinction between capital and operating spending. Of course, this is how businesses operate, as well as most families. There is a family's large capital investments, like the mortgage, house or car loan, and its operational expenses, like clothing, utilities, groceries, etc. In the federal government, we are making significant capital investments in housing, infrastructure, climate adaption and defence, investments that will build a stronger Canada for decades. Operational spending is being strategically managed and will be brought back into balance within three years. That is good fiscal policy, and it is long-term nation-building.

As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, I want to speak directly to what I see in the budget for Hamilton.

Hamilton's infrastructure has benefited from significant levels of federal investment, but continued growth and modernization require even more. Now is the time for provincial and federal partners to build on that progress and deliver the next wave of funding to strengthen services, support housing and prepare Hamilton for the next generations to come.

This budget commits $115 billion over five years toward the building and repairing of infrastructure. For Hamilton, that would mean investments in transit, drinking water, waste-water and stormwater systems, community spaces and the critical infrastructure that underpins responsible and sustainable growth.

There is $25 billion over the next five years for housing, supporting and enhancing the incredible progress already being made in Hamilton through the Hamilton is Home coalition, one of the most ambitious housing initiatives in the entire country.

There is $30 billion over five years for defence, supporting Canada's manufacturing sector, an area where Hamilton plays a critical role. Hamilton's steelworkers, machinists and advanced manufacturing sector are all essential to Canada's national security and NATO commitments.

The government has also reaffirmed support for the Hamilton B-line LRT, the first phase of the rapid transit BLAST network that will transform the entire city. As I did when I served on Hamilton's city council, I am already looking beyond the B-line LRT toward future investment in the next phase of A-line light rail transit along the Upper James corridor, right from the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport to the port and waterfront.

This is a budget that believes in Hamilton's future.

However, no federal budget, no matter how ambitious, can succeed without the involvement and collaboration of all levels of government, and that includes the Province of Ontario, led by Premier Doug Ford. Federal health transfers to Ontario continue to outpace provincial spending. We urge the Province of Ontario to direct sufficient health care funding toward hospitals and emergency care to improve patient outcomes and the working conditions of doctors, nurses and health care professionals. We urge the Province of Ontario to direct sufficient health care funding toward supports for addictions and mental health, because too often, these health care issues go unresolved and often lead to homelessness.

We are pleased to see that, just this week, Premier Ford is making new investments in Ontario's criminal justice system, strengthening Ontario's bail laws and adding resources to Ontario's jails and courts. The federal government is a willing partner, and we look forward to closer collaboration with the Province of Ontario.

Since the COVID pandemic, affordability and the cost of living have become top of mind for families across Canada, including in Hamilton, Ancaster and Dundas. This budget would strengthen the systems families rely on. Affordable child care gives parents the ability to build careers without sacrificing family, permanent school food programs ensure that children can learn and grow without hunger, a strengthened Canada child benefit lifts hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and an increased old age security supports seniors in their retirement years. Critically, by offsetting municipal costs for infrastructure and housing, we would also reduce the pressure being placed on local municipal property taxpayers.

This is about creating opportunity, good jobs, strong communities and the ability for families to build the life they deserve. The mission statement of the City of Hamilton is “To be the best place to raise a child and age successfully”, and I believe this budget would move us closer to that goal.

Our government is also investing in opportunities for families to earn a secure living and afford a lifestyle they can be proud of. SEIU Healthcare, which represents 68,000 Canadian health care workers, says, “Budget 2025 will help build a stronger Canada by making life more affordable for 200,000 personal support workers...through a new tax credit.... More money in the pockets of PSWs means more care workers at the bedside of Canada’s seniors, and a stronger, more resilient public healthcare system.”

LiUNA Canada, a major partner in the city of Hamilton, says, “LiUNA welcomes the government's continued commitment to apprenticeship, union-led training, and workforce development. By recognizing the essential role of union labour in constructing the infrastructure that powers our economy, this budget reinforces Canada's path to growth, stability, and long-term prosperity. Let's build.”

The Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council said, “We're pleased to see the Federal Government's continued commitment to investing in Canada's workforce through this budget. Increased support for training and apprenticeships under the Union Training and Innovation Program, along with new opportunities for nation-building projects through the Major Projects Office, will help ensure skilled tradespeople can continue building the vital infrastructure Ontario and Canada rely on.”

The president of Canada's Building Trades Unions says, “I also welcome the new Build Communities Strong fund, which includes a generational investment of $50 billion for local infrastructure projects, with a focus on using unionized labour and Community Employment Benefit Agreements. I’m very pleased to see the $450 million for the Strategic Response Fund, which will support tens of thousands of workers and key sectors, from lumber to steel to the auto industry.”

Voters across Canada elected a government that believes in Canada, invests in Canada and trusts Canadians. This budget would build the infrastructure we need for our future and would invest in our country. The budget implementation act is about building a resilient, confident and sovereign Canada that protects our workers, supports our families, strengthens our democracy and secures our place in a rapidly changing world. It is a budget that would build, protect and empower. Finally, it is a budget that reflects the very best of who we are as Canadians.

[Anna Roberts, Conservative, King—Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned seniors. I recently had a conversation with Carole from Seniors Tin Cup, which is an organization that supports seniors. One of the things that really shocked me is that 11.5% of single seniors live below the poverty line, which is an increase of 6.3%.

How can the member justify that this budget would support seniors when there is absolutely nothing in it for them?