Debates of Nov. 27th, 2025

Budget Implementation Act, No. 1

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Conservative colleague for her speech, which was clearly based on her convictions and came from the heart. I appreciated it.

While the member was giving her speech, another speech was being delivered that we could describe as also coming from the heart: Minister Guilbeault announced his resignation as minister—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member to remind him that he is not to use the name of a member in the House.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's reaction.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard about that this second, but I would like to focus on the drug crisis in this country because it is always overshadowed by other stories and other things happening.

We have to talk about this drug crisis, and we have to take the lead and focus on rehabilitation to bring our loved ones home happy, healthy and drug-free.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for showing such passion on a critical issue that is costing the lives of Canadians.

We have heard from chief medical health officers, chief corners, chiefs of police, the First Nations Health Authority and Moms Stop the Harm. They have all been consistent in saying that we need to get politicians out of the way. We need to support evidence-based and expert-led policy, not ideology, and we need to move rapidly.

Does my colleague agree that it is time for politicians to get out of the way? In Portugal, that is the big success story. Politicians got out of the way, and they supported the experts in implementing a policy that supported treatment on demand, recovery, prevention and drug replacement therapy. This was led by experts, not politicians. They got out of the way, but they had a plan with a timeline and they put in the resources to take on the crisis. They went from over 1,000 people dying to 70 people dying each year, so we know we can do it—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to give a chance for the hon. member for Kitchener Centre to respond.

[Kelly DeRidder, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we need to work together. All governments need to work together to find a solution to this crisis. It is the Liberal government that has perpetuated this crisis, though, and it put $1 billion into making it worse.

We need to focus on rehabilitation and recovery. I agree completely with what the member is saying, but I also think we all need to collaborate and work together to find solutions, real solutions, rehabilitative solutions, for our citizens—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I want to point out that, with both pride and sadness, I am wearing a white ribbon to mark the 12 days of action to end violence against women, ending on December 6. I believe that next week, we will have a day to make speeches as part of a ministerial statement. It is important that we remember these women who were murdered in cold blood in 1989 simply because they were women and they were empowered.

I thank these gentlemen for talking while I am giving my speech. It is not always easy to make speeches when we feel that our colleagues do not respect us, that they do not listen, but above all, that they speak over us. I appreciate the intervention, Mr. Speaker.

We are here to discuss Bill C‑15, the budget implementation bill. I will say that I feel like speaking from the heart because this may be the first time in my career as a member of Parliament that I am totally confident I did the right thing by voting against the current government's budget. There is absolutely nothing in it that reflects my constituents' concerns.

People are trying to figure out who hit the budget jackpot. I will certainly talk about the big winners, but there are more losers than winners. My colleague from Shefford has done an outstanding job as our party's critic for seniors for the past six years, and she has taken every opportunity to point out that the Liberal government has been leaving seniors out in the cold since 2015. I, too, make a point of saying that.

We cannot fathom why the government did not allocate a penny of this budget to boosting old age security for people aged 65 to 74, despite their declining buying power. This is an injustice; it is ageism. The government is acting as though 65-year-olds do not have a hard time putting a roof over their heads or food on the table.

People who receive old age security and the guaranteed income supplement have less than $2,000 a month to live on. The vast majority of them have no private pension fund, no RRSP and no savings to help them. The food bank in my riding has also noticed an increase in requests for food assistance from people aged 65 and over, which is unacceptable. How can we treat our founders this way? They are the ones who built the Quebec of today. It is unacceptable, and I will not hesitate to repeat it at every opportunity.

Another injustice is the whole issue of employment insurance. In 2028, a measure will come into effect concerning special benefits for people grieving the death of a loved one, a child, but that will not happen until 2028. Why wait? Why not bring that measure in right away. A bill on this very issue was introduced last week.

That said, there is nothing to remedy this kind of injustice, this discrimination against women, especially those who are mothers and who, if they lose their job after their maternity leave, are unable to collect any employment insurance benefits because they obviously did not accumulate any hours of work while they were on maternity leave. As far as I know, no man can give birth, and therefore no man can say that he is giving birth in order to get maternity leave.

I find it hard to understand why the government is not taking advantage of this budget, which deals with a million things and is 600 pages long, to include a small line to correct this injustice, this discrimination against women who lose their jobs during maternity leave and who cannot get employment insurance if the position they held is eliminated, for example. It is truly unacceptable.

Who, then, are the big winners in this budget? The big winners are the oil companies. The entire fossil fuel sector is a big winner in this budget, and why is that? Well, let us talk about the backsliding. There are plenty of examples of backsliding. Since the Liberals were re-elected, we have seen one example after another.

Regarding the environment, Environment and Climate Change Canada's budget has been cut by up to 15%. Nature-based programs will be cut by $245 million. Liquefied natural gas production could double. There is also the Pathways Plus project. Today, a new pipeline was announced, even though British Columbia and indigenous nations do not want it. That does not matter, because there is a new law on the books that allows the government to circumvent the rules and laws put in place by the provinces, and even those of the Parliament of Canada. Obviously, that is unacceptable.

It is so unacceptable that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has resigned. That is right; he resigned today. He is known as a great environmentalist. When he was minister of environment and climate change, some progress was made. Unfortunately, since the return of the new Liberal government, well, there has been some backsliding. There has been so much backsliding that a minister in the current government has resigned over it. I want to highlight that courageous act, because when you have convictions, you have to stand up for them. The minister probably realized that there is no way to move forward with the current government in place. This position in favour of oil companies and fossil fuels is unlikely to change as long as this government is in power, which is very sad.

On Monday, three UQAM communications students came to my constituency office to meet with me. They were working on a university project that involved creating a podcast, and they chose the environment as their topic. They asked me such great questions. These 18-year-old students, who are just starting their university studies, told me that it seems so obvious to them that we need to disengage from the fossil fuel sector, and they asked me why that was not happening. It was such an excellent question that I want to ask it too. The issue is complex, but they are right. It is all too obvious that we need to disengage from fossil fuels, move on to climate adaptation and find ways to further reduce our environmental footprint.

I told them that some sectors, individuals and businesses get more of the government's attention than others because they have more resources. That is not to say that all is lost, but it does mean that we need to speak up more loudly and voice our convictions more forcefully, because the fossil fuel and nuclear energy sectors have a lot of influence on this government and close ties with it. These students were surprised to hear me say that they were obviously right, but that this sector has had the government's ear for years.

The budget allocates several billion dollars in tax credits and other types of credits to this sector. If there is one sector that is not struggling and that is raking in billions of dollars in profits every year, it is the oil sector. The students had a hard time understanding why, for example, the government has promised to build a pipeline to British Columbia's Pacific coast, in an area with impressive biodiversity. Everyone knows about it; it is well documented. It is going to happen even if British Columbia opposes it. To them, it is obvious, and they wonder how this can happen. These are political games to score points, even if it means jeopardizing a wonderfully biodiverse environment that is carefully protected by an indigenous nation. These are political games to gain support in Alberta. I find this scandalous, and these students are right to have talked to me about it and to have asked these questions.

I will wrap up, even though I could talk for hours about what upsets me about this budget, but before I do, there is one last thing that I want to share. For several years now, I have been fighting to have small fruit producers who make alcohol from pears, currants or blueberries exempt from the excise tax. They are currently not exempt, but those who produce apple cider and mead are. That is thanks to the work of the member for Joliette—Manawan, who fought for this measure at the Standing Committee on Finance three years ago. However, there is something we do not understand. The current Minister of Finance and National Revenue represents a riding that includes rural areas. He is a Quebecker. He knows full well that artisans who produce a few thousand bottles of pear cider are not competing with international producers. They should be exempt from the excise tax.

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to ask my colleague whether she believes that seniors' benefits remain the most important social program in the federal budget, ahead of the Canada health transfer and the Canada child benefit.

This is an important part of Canada's transfer system and the benefit system for our seniors. Also, are seniors not happy to now have access to the Canadian dental care plan?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. This gives me a chance to tell her that seniors are indeed happy that their dental care is cheaper. However, can they really pay for fillings if they do not have the money to pay the rent or buy groceries?

I do not think the member understands that the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement are universal programs and that the Liberals have consciously created a distinction between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those over 75. That is unacceptable.

She should not stand for that. She should try to make her government aware of this discrimination, which is completely unacceptable.

[Harb Gill, Conservative, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the luxury tax on yachts and private jets, which have a huge carbon footprint, is gone, but the tax on work trucks that farmers and tradespeople use is still around. Does the member believe, as I do, that this budget is written for Bay Street billionaires? The farmers and tradespeople who keep this country fed and running are once again left holding the bag.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I represent a rural region where there are many produce growers and many people who farm grains, fruits, vegetables, corn and soybeans. Frankly, this budget does not take into account our farmers' reality at all. It does not offer them the support they require or programs tailored to their needs.

Canada-wide programs do not work in agriculture because production in the east and west are different. With climate change, we would have expected the government to be more responsive to all of our producers in the budget.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up on a question about seniors that the member for Guelph put to my colleague. I would like to note that I am a bit surprised by this lack of sensitivity. In the last Parliament, the bill to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 received unanimous support. Even the Liberals voted for it. Everyone acknowledged that indexing the pension was no longer enough and that people on fixed incomes could no longer make ends meet because of inflation.

We have been talking about food banks, where more and more seniors are asking for help. Just before the budget was tabled, the Fédération de l'Âge d'Or du Québec, or FADOQ, told me that its members are no longer able to make ends meet, so this budget has to do something for seniors.

During our constituency week, I spoke with the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, or AQDR, which advocates for the rights of people who are retired or approaching retirement. I talked with its representatives. Things are not working anymore. They want us to bring this issue forward again. They do not understand why this government cares so little about the seniors who built Quebec.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and commend her for her dedication to the plight of seniors. The Bloc Québécois is lucky to have her. She gives a voice to seniors in the House of Commons. If not for the Bloc, no one would be talking about seniors here.

To answer her question, seniors talk to us in our ridings. Twenty per cent of my constituents are seniors aged 65 and over. Quebec and British Columbia have highest aging rates in Canada. Some seniors have worked their entire lives and yet they cannot afford their rent. There is not enough social housing or low-cost housing. When we see that we wonder if the same thing is happening in our riding.

I am little surprised by my colleague opposite's insensitivity when it comes to the plight of seniors. I think that more detailed discussions on that topic would be worthwhile to improve his knowledge.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the great people of Simcoe—Grey to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act.

When the budget was announced, I, like many of my constituents, was shocked that the so-called new Liberal government could spend even more than the so-called old Liberal government.

What a decade it has been. Almost every facet of Canadian life has declined. Our young people find it harder to get work and many have given up on ever owning a home. Previously, middle-class families were able to save a little to get ahead and now they struggle just to get by. Seniors, especially single ones, who rely on CPP and OAS to get by are spending their golden years in poverty. Every crime indicator has increased. Homeless encampments are everywhere. Illegal drug use is rampant. Housing prices have recently cooled but still remain near all-time highs. It is great for those who own a home, but a disaster for those who dream of owning one themselves. Therefore, people rent, but rent too takes up more of their monthly budget than it ever has before.

If everyone was being totally honest, I do not believe anyone in this place could say that, for the majority of Canadians, life has improved in the last 10 years.

When constituents write to me, call my offices or speak to me at many events, they often raise these issues. As we all know in this place, constituents raise many issues, but if I were to group them into categories, then I would say that cost of living is by far the most common issue I hear about. The issue that most affects cost of living is just how expensive food is. We are not just talking about organic, imported, deluxe foods. We are talking about basic Canadian staples, like beef, bread and vegetables.

I know we have heard some of these numbers in the chamber before, but let us have a quick recap. As of October 2025, here are the year-to-year price increases: Fresh or frozen beef is up 16.8%. Fresh or frozen chicken is up 6.2%. Apples are up 4.2%, and carrots are up 11%. These are just a few examples.

The irony is that much of this food is produced in Canada, including in my riding, Simcoe—Grey. The local producers of this food are not seeing profits increasing at the same rate that prices are rising in grocery stores. A recent report indicated that a full 80.6% of Canadians say food is their top expense pressure, a shocking 28% of Canadians use their savings or borrow money just to buy their food, and a quarter of Canadians are experiencing food insecurity.

That is a key term the government likes to use. In fact, it is one of the government's key arguments as to why Canada now needs a national school food program. Let us leave aside the fact that the only reason Canada would ever need a school food program is that so many Canadians have become poorer under the government that they now have difficulty feeding their children healthy food. There have been initiatives in the past in less affluent areas of the country, where school breakfasts or lunch programs existed to address certain challenges. A national school food program means that kids going hungry is now a national problem, after 10 years of Liberal fiscal mismanagement. If Liberals want to push a national school food program, they are certainly welcome to it, but when doing so, they should acknowledge that this is not a generous initiative; it is an attempt to fix a problem that, quite simply, they created.

I am not here to debate the proposed national school program, but I do want to bring attention to the Liberals' vision for the program, as outlined in Bill C-15, under division 44, proposed paragraph 5(a):

the Government of Canada’s vision is that all children and youth in Canada have access to nutritious food at school, in an inclusive and non-stigmatizing setting that fosters healthy practices, through school food programs that strengthen connections with local food systems, the environment and culture;

I want to draw members attention to the two points in that quote. The first is access to nutritious food. Whether the government is using Canadian tax dollars to provide kids at school food or parents are using their own money to provide it at home, I think everyone here would agree that access to nutritious food is number one. The second point is the connection to local food systems, the environment and culture. I know that in Simcoe—Grey, we really live by those words. The local food scene is incredible. I do not know if anyone has ever tried it, but I imagine that one could go a year eating only food grown in my riding of Simcoe—Grey.

All the major meats, soy, grains, vegetables, apples, berries and milk are produced in Simcoe—Grey. Many producers go back generations, and some even to the 1800s, with generation after generation of farm families producing the healthy foods we enjoy, all while ensuring the environment remains clean, the soil rich and our water pristine. When the government talks about nutrition and strong connections to the local food system, the environment and culture, those are words we really agree upon.

That is why it is so difficult for me and so many residents of Simcoe—Grey to understand what the government is doing in Clearview Township, one of the communities in my riding. Back in July, my office was notified by the Minister of National Defence and DND that it had purchased 711 acres of prime agricultural land, which it plans to strip down to build one of the Arctic over-the-horizon radar projects right now.

Do not get me wrong, a Liberal government taking an interest in defence once again is a good thing. The proposed pay raise for the men and women in uniform is one of the positives in the budget. Simcoe—Grey is very proud of our Canadian Forces Base Borden. In fact, the proposed radar site is only about 10 or so kilometres from Base Borden.

I want to stress that no one in Simcoe—Grey is opposed to updating Canada's radar system, but they are very concerned about the proposed location and what it entails for our local farming community. Many residents found out about this radar project when they received a letter in the mail from DND asking to buy their land. That is right. It is building a radar site next door, but this is only phase one. It will also build phase two, and the government wants their land to do it. Imagine the reaction from local landowners. Many reached out to my office with questions and concerns.

To the minister's credit, he did provide some information to my office. DND even hosted two jam-packed town halls, both on the same day; we wanted more meetings. Here is where we are at. DND intends to proceed with phase one of the project even without securing land for phase two, which it will not be able to do because no one wants to sell the farms that have been in their families for generations. The government will need to expropriate farmers to get the land, and we are not just talking about a couple of small farms. When phase two is completed, it is estimated that 4,000 acres of Canada's most prime farmland will be taken out of our national ecosystem. This is prime farmland that produces an array of foodstuffs.

To put it in perspective for Canadians, I had some of the affected landowners in my riding put together some numbers of what will be lost if the government follows through with this project. On an annual basis, Canada will lose the production of 820,000 bushels of corn, which would make 300 million 12-inch tortillas or 50 million boxes of Corn Flakes; 196,000 bushels of soybeans, which is 258,000 gallons of soybean oil or 8.6 million pounds of protein; 368,000 bushels of wheat, which makes 15.4 million pounds of flour, seven million loaves of bread or 15.4 million one-pound boxes of pasta; and 14 million pounds of canola, which produces 789,000 gallons of canola oil or eight million pounds of canola meal. Add to that 185,000 pounds of beef, 700,000 pounds of chicken and 2,500 pounds of pork.

These are huge numbers. It is astounding to me and to so many people in Simcoe—Grey that at a time when the government is talking about food costs, food security and the importance of nutritious local food, the government would simultaneously be proposing to take all this nutritious, local food out of the national food supply. There must be another site for this project in southern Ontario that meets the criteria. The criteria is remote land, flat land, few environmental constraints, distance and close to electrical power. We do not believe eliminating 4,000 acres of prime farmland and destroying generational farm families' livelihoods is the process.

The government needs to realize that jeopardizing food security in the name of national security is not the way to go. I encourage the government to scratch its plans for Clearview Township and investigate the other sites we have proposed in order to not affect and reduce national food security.

I want to thank Rachel Brooks and Terri Jackman for all the work they are doing on this.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did a very quick Google search on a comment the member made. It said the year-over-year price of chicken in Canada has seen an increase of approximately 1.5% according to the consumer price index, though other sources report higher wholesale retail prices. It goes on to give a bit more of an explanation. The member had indicated that it was a price increase of 6.2%.

Now, I am not saying that this particular Google search is right on the mark, but is the member absolutely confident in the percentages that he has been using?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not here to split hairs, by any means, but those are the numbers that we got through our research, which is number one.

At the end of the day, if the member opposite went to a grocery store, I think he would probably find those numbers are realistic. I often go to the grocery store and things are up even more than that. That is the average that we found. I believe those are the answers.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a hard-working member. His riding is adjacent to mine. He is well-respected in his community. I know he works hard.

I know he is dealing with an issue that I am keeping an eye on. He referenced the DND expropriation of almost 4,000 acres of farmland. This is prime agricultural land. There are generational family farms. The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture is engaged, trying to do everything it can to stop this.

Could the member comment a little further? Obviously, when land is expropriated, people do not get the true value for it, and all the significant investments that farmers have made in that area will be lost as well.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is also a hard worker. He knows, and it is what I have heard, that these farming communities have no interest in selling. These farming communities have grown through the years, through generations. They have a lot of equipment. I do not know what happens when it comes to the expropriation process, but what I can say is that these individuals have absolutely zero interest in selling.

He is correct. Many organizations have reached out, and they are not against. I want to stress that no one is against the actual radar system and what we are doing in the military. We are very proud. There are other organizations, including the beef producers and the Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture, that have sent letters. Neighbouring municipalities have as well. I know Innisfil, which is in the member's riding, Clearview Township, the host municipality, and Mayor Measures have been against the location and the site. As well, Essa Township and, just the other day, the Township of Springwater, all within the Simcoe County, have opposed this particular location.

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

Mr. Speaker, I did not think I would be saying this today, but it is a topsy-turvy world, or rather, a topsy-turvy pipeline. We just found out that the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has resigned. He is the former minister of environment and climate change, for those who still believe climate change exists.

We know that one side is not so sure it exists and the other side, the side of the government and the Liberal Party, is really starting to have doubts, and rightly so. The Liberals are adopting not one pipeline, but two. Trans Mountain cost $34 billion, and now we are talking about a new pipeline that will cost roughly $20 billion.

I wonder if the Conservatives regret not voting for the budget. The Liberals are doing exactly what the Conservatives wanted, in other words, more oil, more oil and gas development, and a new pipeline. Does my colleague agree with what the government is doing? Does he agree with giving the green light to a new pipeline and investing billions more in fossil fuels?

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not regret voting against this budget. My concerns were with the deficit, the expenses and the amount of money. We hear those numbers and stats, that the interest payments are more than the transfers to health care and more than the GST we collect. I am not upset with my objection, because I care about the next generations.

When it comes to the pipeline, my opinion is that we need to get our resources to market. I am not surprised that one of the members from the Liberal Party resigned. I actually thought last term that it would have been a lot more, because they would have realized what they were doing to this country.

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages and to the Secretary of State (Sport)]

Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 is a concrete, ambitious budget that is deeply focused on the needs of families on the north shore. In an unstable international context where our supply chains and businesses are facing strong pressures, our government is choosing to make significant investments to reduce the cost of living, modernize our infrastructure and strengthen our economy.

In Thérèse‑De Blainville, that means directly investing in our roads, municipal networks and community centres, providing real support for housing, creating more jobs for our young people and expressing clear support for our small and medium-sized manufacturers, which are the economic heart of the region. I know that local mayors are thrilled with this budget and are ready to work with us to capitalize on it.

In terms of infrastructure, the budget allocates $115 billion to accelerate infrastructure projects. These are unprecedented investments: $57 billion for public transit and green infrastructure, $22 billion for community infrastructure and $16 billion for energy efficiency. In Thérèse-De Blainville, this means that Sainte-Thérèse, Blainville, Lorraine, Bois-des-Filion and Terrebonne will finally be able to implement long-awaited projects, such as upgrading roads and water systems, adding bike paths and building community, cultural and sports centres. The projects are there, and we want our beautiful region to reap the benefits. These investments will support thousands of skilled jobs in our region and improve the quality of life for our families.

Families on the north shore are feeling the pressure of the cost of living. That is the truth. Budget 2025 provides direct answers. There is a tax cut for 22 million Canadians, representing up to $420 per person and $840 for a couple. Automatic payment of federal benefits will help up to 5.5 million people receive the amounts they are entitled to. Canada's national school food program will provide 400,000 additional meals to children, saving a family with two children approximately $800 per year. For our young families, this is immediate and essential relief.

There are wonderful organizations and tremendous leaders in Thérèse-De Blainville, where everyone works together to take care of one another. The leaders of these organizations took the time to tell me how important the budget is to them in terms of providing solutions. Once again, they are ready to work with us to improve quality of life in our riding.

Now I want to talk about housing. In a rapidly growing region like Thérèse-De Blainville, housing is a top priority. The budget invests $25 billion over five years to accelerate residential construction. This includes $9 billion for Build Canada Homes; eliminating the GST on the purchase of new homes up to $1 million, which could mean a savings of up to $50,000; and more than $573 million per year in loans for affordable rental buildings. Thanks to these measures, our regional developers will be able to build faster and our municipalities will be able to densify around transit stations to meet mobility needs.

There is so much potential for growth in the region. Of course, public transit must go hand in hand with housing, since traffic congestion is an issue in our region. We need to find solutions for public transit while developing affordable housing. That is why we have funding set aside for infrastructure. It is why we will work with cities to find solutions while investing in affordable housing for our seniors, our young people and our families.

Let us talk about our SMEs and the local economy. What a wonderful topic. Our SMEs are the economic engine of Thérèse-de-Blainville. The 2025 budget offers them robust support with $10 billion in loans for businesses affected by U.S. tariffs, a superdeduction of up to 125% for automation and $40 billion in additional cash flow through tax payment deferral. Companies like Enertec Rail Equipment, Miratech and Novatech will be able to modernize their facilities, invest in productivity and protect quality jobs. This is direct support for more than 3,500 jobs in our region. Even as we derive economic strength from our SMEs and make investments in major projects across Canada, we must also promote the francophonie and enable SMEs to connect with the francophone network across Canada. We have to leverage the strength of the francophonie and Canada's two official languages as incredible assets for attracting investment.

Budget 2025 delivers the goods for youth, who are so important: 100,000 jobs under the Canada summer jobs program, 20,000 youth receiving support through the youth employment and skills strategy and an additional 55,000 work placements. That is significant. In Thérèse-de-Blainville, where so many students are looking for their first job experience, these programs are opening doors in a real and lasting way. I am well aware of the challenges confronting our young people, who are currently grappling with a digital transformation that is affecting the types of jobs available, not to mention the uncertainty caused by the United States in recent months that has kept businesses from investing. Our budget is completely responsible. It sends a strong message to our SMEs that the time has come to invest in productivity and competitiveness again and to grow our place in the world.

Seniors are very important in my riding. Protecting our seniors is essential. Budget 2025 creates the first national anti-fraud strategy, which includes a mandatory code of conduct for banks and a new agency to combat financial crimes that will be operational in 2026. In a region where our seniors are too often targeted, this strengthened framework will allow us to take effective action against financial exploitation. Seniors are also asking us to provide them with opportunities for physical exercise. We talk about the importance of mental health in ending social isolation. We need to invest in infrastructure, and that is what we have done for seniors. I am already working with people in towns and cities to find the best infrastructure for seniors, including for their quality of life.

Culture is the heart and soul of our cities. Budget 2025 invests $770 million to support local festivals, major events, local media and, of course, the CBC/Radio-Canada. For Thérèse-de-Blainville, where libraries, broadcasters and festivals play an essential role, these investments are a breath of fresh air and will provide concrete support for the cultural vitality of the north shore. We have a golden opportunity right now to put our Canadian pride on full display. I am a proud Quebecker and a proud Canadian. Culture is important, and I am very proud that our government has chosen to invest in culture in this budget, which is so strategic for our constituents.

The budget supports workers with $3.7 billion in income assistance for those affected by trade tensions, as well as a national online training platform. This means more tools for workers, more retraining, and a stronger partnership with regional unions such as the FTQ, the CSN, and Unifor. In Thérèse-de-Blainville, people tell me they are tired of parties that criticize everything but offer nothing. Budget 2025 provides more assistance for families, more housing, more infrastructure, more jobs for young people, and more support for small and medium-sized enterprises.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, people all the way from Golden in the Rockies, through the Shuswap and right through to Kamloops have told me that the current Liberal government is worse than the last for its projected deficits. Canadians are now going to be paying more in debt service costs than we are going to be spending on health care transfers. This is like racking up credit card debt to the point where one cannot afford the monthly essentials like health care.

How can the member opposite look people in the eye, especially young people, and tell them, “It's okay; your generation and future generations are going to have to pay back the debt that we are taking from you right now”?

[Madeleine Chenette, Liberal, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can look my constituents and my children and grandchildren in the eye.

This is not a credit card budget, as the Conservatives like to call it. It is a budget that offers ways to find money to improve the quality of life of Canadians, while making investments in the future. When I put money in my children's TFSA and in programs, I know I am investing in their future. That is exactly what we are doing. We are investing in everyone's future.