Debates of Nov. 27th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, well, let me be very clear: I voted against the Liberals. I did not vote with the Conservatives; I voted against the Liberals. Why? The NDP actually tried to make this work and went to the government, saying we would support the budget if, for example, it invested $1.5 billion in co-op housing with affordability criteria attached; if, in fact, it brought forward an EI support program for workers who are going to be losing their jobs; and if it would not impose cuts that would impact indigenous people's services, for example.

There was a list of things we brought to the government, and it rejected them. This is what we voted against: the government refusing to support the Canadians who need help the most during this affordability crisis.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, thank you for maintaining order here in the House. That is the way it should be. I want to highlight that and tell you how much I appreciate it. I just came from a committee meeting where, once again, there was a lot of partisan behaviour. It was all very performative.

I am tired of the debate focusing on whether or not people voted against the budget. Can we please talk about the real issues? When I go home to my riding, people ask me if the government is abandoning the forestry industry. When I ask my colleague a question, I want to hear actual facts. I want to hear constructive ideas, specific measures.

We are going to go home to our ridings, where the forestry industry is one of the economic drivers and where people are concerned about climate change, so I would ask my colleagues to stop talking about whether they voted for or against the budget.

What does my colleague think?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I will tell the House what I was looking for in the budget that I did not see. I was looking for affordable housing at scale, that is, a million units over a decade to deliver for and address the affordability housing crisis. I was looking for community housing for people in Quebec, in British Columbia and across the country, not a measly $500-million investment that will barely, barely have an impact. We were looking for investment in public transit in Quebec and in British Columbia. We were looking for an east-west energy grid connecting provinces with clean energy. Instead, Canadians are left with incremental changes, tax breaks for corporations and more austerity for the public sector. Not to mention, there was no support for the environment.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member characterized this as a Conservative budget. While there were elements of it lifted from our election campaign, and I want to thank the government for including some of those measures, I will agree with her in that we both opposed the budget but, obviously, for varying reasons. What makes this not a Conservative budget is the fact that there is a $78.3-billion deficit.

Would the member across the way not agree, with the fallout of a $78.3-billion deficit, the inflation that will surely again fall, the bills that will be in today's and future taxes on our children and our grandchildren, those effects affect the very people the member across the way is purportedly trying to help? The effects fall disproportionately to the lower socio-economic levels, the very people she identified in her speech as those she wants to help.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, this is an austerity budget. This is actually what the Conservatives want. However, we do not support this. What the NDP called for was for the government to protect services, to support working families and to ensure deeper affordability measures. If we are serious about Canada's future, about—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Foothills.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the constituents and families in Foothills, my farmers, my ranchers, my agri-food processors and certainly my families and entrepreneurs.

Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, is anything but a plan for prosperity. It is a blueprint for higher taxes, higher debt, higher inflation and higher costs for the people who feed and power this economy. I could probably summarize the Liberal budget in two ways: It is a budget of over-promising and underdelivery.

In the previous election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians fiscal restraint, transformational change and fiscal discipline. Once again, the Liberals failed to deliver on any of those things. I would warn the Liberals that they cannot build the Canada of tomorrow, which all of us want to see, if they are mortgaging the future. This is exactly what the budget has done, with almost $80 billion in additional debt burden on the backs of Canadian taxpayers.

As a result of this, our standard of living is eroding. That is a concern for an entire generation of young Canadians, who are starting to accept that this type of debt and deficit is becoming the norm. Others have certainly noticed. For example, out of the 48 countries tracked by the OECD, Canada is expected to rank second worst in per capita growth from now until 2030. Canada has the worst per capita growth in the G7, with more than a 10% drop in investment per worker.

A decade ago that certainly was not the reality for Canadians. Under the previous Conservative government, we had the wealthiest middle class in the world. We had a balanced budget. We were respected by our most important and trusted trading partners. For the most part, Canadian families had hope. Instead, the Liberal government has chosen to burden and throw gas on the inflationary fire, with $90 billion in new spending and a $78 billion deficit.

Unbelievably, the Liberal government's deficit is twice that of the previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, with a deficit and reckless spending that sent his finance minister packing. I find it incredibly interesting that only a year ago, the Liberal members were scrambling, outraged at the reckless spending of the predecessor, but now they are standing and cheering deficits and spending that are twice that of Justin Trudeau. It is incredible how things have changed on the Liberal benches and how easily they will twist themselves just to ensure that they win an election.

To put this in perspective, the cost of just maintaining that debt is more than $50 billion a year. That is more than what the federal government is transferring to provinces in health care. Instead of building hospitals, hiring doctors and nurses, or expanding ports and repairing highways, more than $50 billion in taxpayer money is going just to service the Liberal debt. That is an incredible number. I hope Canadians who are watching here today understand the consequences and ramifications of those kinds of numbers.

For Canadians, it is very hard to fathom that. For Canadians who are standing in line waiting for a family doctor or waiting hours on end in the emergency, I want them to think about the fact that we have solutions for those problems. However, instead of funds going to solve those problems, they are going to pay down just the interest on Canada's credit card as a result of the Liberals' out-of-control spending. As typical Liberals, they promise one thing during an election and do the exact opposite once they are elected.

During the election, they promised transformational change and generational investment. However, what they have delivered is intergenerational debt, and it will take generations of Canadians to try to pay this back. Canadians are not fooled. Even some of the Liberals' best friends are not fooled.

I would like to mention some headlines that have come out since the budget was released. We have, from the Toronto Sun, “[The Prime Minister's] budget as unsustainable as a Trudeau budget”; from the National Post, “Liberals should be kept far away from the economy”; from The Globe and Mail, “The Liberals' growing deficit of trust”; and from the Liberals' favourite publication, the Toronto Star, “Once again, [the Prime Minister] doesn't quite live up to the hype”.

These warnings are coming in when Canadians are struggling as they never have before.

Food Banks Canada reported that more than two million Canadians are being forced to line up at food banks every single month. That number has more than doubled over the last five years. It is unbelievable that four out of five Canadians now list food security as their number one financial burden. How does that happen in a country as wealthy as Canada, or seemingly as wealthy, until the Liberals got out of control with their spending?

This is hitting all of us in our ridings. For example, at the Okotoks Food Bank, in one of the largest communities in my riding, food bank use is up 200%. In the first seven months of last year, it had about 15,000 users; it now has more than 45,000. In my small hometown of High River, more than 100 families are using the food bank every single week. That is absolutely unbelievable in a country like Canada.

Food banks were never designed to be the backbone of a social safety net, but that is exactly what has happened under the Liberals. The food banks are now becoming a primary source of groceries for too many Canadian families, when they are supposed to be the source of last resort. This is a new reality Canadian families are facing.

I want to touch on a subject about which the Liberals are really gaslighting Canadians. They are trying to say that the hidden taxes the Liberals have put on food prices are imaginary. They are not imaginary. In fact Canadians are seeing the impact of these taxes every single week when they try to go to the grocery store and put food on the table. How can these taxes be imaginary when they are actually included in the Liberal budget?

In the Liberal budget, the Liberals say they are going to maintain the escalator tax on beer, wine and spirits. It is actually connected to inflation, so the Liberals cannot even say how high the escalator tax is going to be when it hits on April 1. It says in the budget that they are going to maintain the Liberal fuel standard, which adds 17¢ a litre for farmers who grow the food, truckers who move the food, and certainly the retailers who sell the food.

In the budget, the Liberals also say they are going to strengthen, which means increase, the industrial carbon tax, which increases the cost of literally everything. It not only increases those costs but also drives investment and industry out of Canada. As my colleague from Saskatchewan mentioned earlier, we have seen the consequences of that when a $1 billion new potash terminal is going to be built in Vancouver, Washington, not Vancouver, British Columbia.

Nutrien is one of the largest potash producers in the world, based proudly in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, but one of Canada's crown jewel industries is not investing in Canada. It is investing in the United States because of a regulatory regime in Canada that is unnavigable and because of high tax rates. It simply cannot carry the burden.

That is just the latest warning sign that we have seen as a result of Liberal taxes and a regulatory regime that are driving investment away. In fact more than $50 billion in investment has fled Canada since the Prime Minister was elected last spring. Since 2015, and this is a staggering number, 670 billion dollars' worth of resource projects have been either shelved or delayed as a result of the high taxes and regulatory regime of the Liberal government.

I just want to name a few of the projects that would certainly impact everybody across Canada. The Teck frontier mine, the northern gateway pipeline, energy east, the Saguenay LNG project and Pacific NorthWest LNG have all been shelved as a result of the Liberal government. Imagine the jobs that Canadians would have, had these projects gone ahead.

Finally, I want to mention this: The Liberals continue to say they are in a trade war, but we cannot be in a war if we have already surrendered. They have backed down on everything. Conservatives stand ready to work with anyone who is committed to getting Canada back on track and unleashing our resources like agriculture, mining and energy to provide Canada with the tools we need to face these challenges, to be successful and to have hope. Conservatives are willing to get that work done, and that is why we cannot support the budget, because the Liberals are certainly not willing to make those sacrifices.

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

Madam Speaker, a year ago at this time I stood in the chamber and was talking about foreign investment. I said that Canada was number one in the G7 in terms of foreign investment coming into Canada. We were number three in the entire world.

The Conservatives try to paint a black picture of Canada. I suggest to the member that Canada is not broken. In fact we have a proactive, aggressive Prime Minister who is travelling abroad to bring in hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. He is expanding trade opportunities. Canada is a trading nation. The member can put whatever spin he wants on it, but the Prime Minister and the government are working night and day to ensure that we will have the strongest economy in the country. That is our goal, and I believe we will achieve it.

Does the member opposite support the Prime Minister's initiative to get out there, get exports for Canada and wait to get the best deal we can for Canada-U.S. trade?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, my short answer is that I do not. Every time the Prime Minister goes away, it gets worse for Canadians. I will talk just about agriculture.

The Prime Minister goes to India, and India puts 30% tariffs on Canadian yellow peas. He goes to the United States, and the United States increases tariffs for Canadians. The Liberals send a delegation to China, and what does China do? It increases tariffs on Canadian agriculture products from 25% to 100%. Canola, peas, pork, beef and seafood are now all being tariffed at record rates. The Prime Minister goes to the United Kingdom, and what does he get? Absolutely nothing. We get zero beef and pork imported by the United Kingdom and the European Union. However, what comes the other way? Beef imports into Canada from the United Kingdom are up 150%.

Every time the Prime Minister goes somewhere, when he comes back, it is worse, except that he somehow gets great deals for Brookfield and enriches his own pockets.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech, which was thorough and to the point as always.

We have talked a lot about things in this budget that are not good for ordinary people. For example, we talked about the $100 billion in tax credits that are still being given to the oil and gas industry, even though it logs record-breaking profits year after year.

That said, there is one thing that was in the last two budgets but is not in this one: a plan to pass legislation on forced labour and child labour. There is nothing in this budget about the government's intentions in that regard. That was one good intention the government had back when it truly cared about human rights.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton introduced Bill C‑251, which would reverse the burden of proof in cases of forced labour and child labour. Do the Conservatives agree that we absolutely have to pass this bill and that we have to do the government's job because it is incapable of doing it?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I just want to touch on a couple of things in my colleague's question. I think he has highlighted very well that the budget is about what is not there. What is not there is the details.

The Liberals talk a lot about spending, but the success of a budget is not about how much we spend; it is about the impact that spending is going to have. We do not see anything about expanding ports, repairing highways, diversifying trade or how we will get our products to market. To the member's first point, yes, the biggest issue with the budget is not what is missing; it is a lot of fanfare and no details.

On the member's second question, I would agree. I have not had a chance to read the bill he mentioned. It is something the Bloc is very passionate about, and certainly I think all of us are. My colleague from northern Alberta talks about human trafficking and human slavery. I think we would all support cracking down on those issues.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think we heard very clearly the attitude the Prime Minister has toward Canadians, when this past weekend, when asked about the ongoing trade discussions with the U.S., he said, “Who cares?” He said it is not a burning issue and that it does not matter. I have been very clear that it matters in my riding, where yet another mill announced a closure yesterday, with the loss of 100 more jobs.

There is blatant arrogance and a dismissive attitude toward all Canadians from the Prime Minister when we bring up these issues. Can the member comment on that?

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would say to my incredible colleague from Cariboo—Prince George that I could not agree more. The message being sent to Canadians, especially in the forestry and energy sectors, is that the Prime Minister, at one of the most critical times in our history, just does not care. I think that says all there is to say.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C-15 and, of course, the budget.

The budget tabled on November 4 is about building a stronger and more prosperous Canada. It essentially boils down to three themes: building, protecting and empowering Canada. I will discuss these three broad themes in greater detail in a moment, but before I do, I would like to put the budget into context.

The context is that the world has changed. The world has changed in the last year or so, ever since a new administration came to power down south and implemented a trade policy that is unusual, to say the least. We are not in a situation of cyclical change where things are likely to go back to normal within a few quarters. No, we are facing a major economic shock. On top of that, this shock follows two previous events that severely disrupted the Canadian economy, specifically the global financial crisis in 2007-08 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, so this is the third successive shock to hit the Canadian economy.

What has been happening for the past year or so is very serious and very grave. The shift in global trade resulting from policy changes in the United States is weakening multilateral institutions, the rule of law, and trust between economic partners. The imposition of arbitrary, unfair and illegal tariffs has a twofold impact: first, supply chains are being reconfigured, and second, many companies are learning that in order to sell to the United States, they must manufacture in the United States. This is causing many problems for all trading partners, but it is also causing problems for us, since our economies are closely intertwined. This situation is causing prices to increase across the board, fuelling inflation and creating additional problems. As has been mentioned several times, the United States accounts for 75% to 80% of our exports. It is therefore clear that we are the country most affected by these major changes.

We understand very well that this situation calls for the government to meet the moment with a strong, ambitious, massive response. That is what we have delivered in budget 2025. Ultimately, we are doing what we said we would do. We are simply implementing what we promised.

It is worth noting that what we are essentially doing is reorienting the Government of Canada's economic policy to clearly encourage investment. This is an investment budget that will increase our production capacity and help Canada transition to an economy that is less dependent on the U.S. economy. We are planning to invest about $280 billion in infrastructure and other areas, which should catalyze close to $1 trillion in total investments. That is one-third of Canada's GDP. Obviously, there are risks involved, and it is clear that this is not a given. Indeed, there is no 100% guarantee that these investments will happen. However, with the measures we are putting in place, we are confident that these investments will materialize.

In fact, we think that the biggest risk would be to take no risks at all and table a budget more in keeping with the norm. For at least the past three months, our Conservative colleagues have repeatedly floated the idea of a truly conservative budget approach. That is not our approach. What they are proposing is an austerity approach. Right now, with all the upheaval coming from outside the country, this kind of approach would certainly lead us into a very serious recession.

What we gather from our Conservative friends' statements is that their fiscal approach would most likely reduce investment by $50 billion to $60 billion. As others have already mentioned, that kind of austerity would be downright toxic, because it would weaken the economy even more at a time when it is already weak.

A number of studies have mentioned the need for fiscal restraint, but the blind austerity proposed by our Conservative colleagues would have made the situation much worse.

Is sustainability really a problem as far as Canada's fiscal policies are concerned?

Is the Canadian public debt sustainable or not sustainable? Would a deficit of $78 billion in the budget be manageable or not manageable? Would this deficit generate, as our friends maintain, massive inflation, or would it support the economy, allow us to expand the supply side of the economy and, in fact, contribute to having fewer inflationary pressures? We think it is the latter.

A deficit of $78 billion is a deficit of 2.5% of GDP. That is perfectly manageable. That is a lot less than many of our partners have, whether it is the United States or even countries in Europe. Our level of public debt is around 43% of GDP, and it would remain in that range for the next five years, which is a level of debt that is sustainable.

Members do not need to take my word for it. Members can look at the financial markets and at what is going on in the bond market. Where are the long-term bond yields? They are lower now in absolute terms than they were in 2006, when there was another government in place at that time. Therefore, our debt is sustainable. We can and we do afford it. We are able to finance that debt.

Interest payments over GDP are a lot less now than what they were in the 1990s. It seems to me that our Conservative friends appear to still be living in the 1990s. We are no longer in the 1990s. The world has changed. We are now at a point in time, in 2025, when those of us who believe that the state has an important role to play are doing it, and those of us who believe that the state should just step aside, well, they will see how that goes in countries where that is taking place. It would be making a bad situation 10 times worse if the state were to withdraw from the economy at this point.

We need to promote investment. We need to make sure that our economy is efficient and productive and that the private sector finds reasons to invest and projects to invest in. We will support that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated the member's speech as it was quite entertaining. There was this new term of “clever austerity”, which I guess is the reverse of austerity. The word “clever” makes the word “austerity” mean the opposite.

Justin Trudeau, in all of his time in power, outside of COVID, never had a budget that had this much deficit spending in it. If this is what clever austerity is, I do not know what actual austerity looks like.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure I fully understand the question from my colleague because I never said “clever austerity”. I just said that this is not the time to impose toxic austerity. This is not the time to cut government spending blindly and hope that the invisible hand will somehow address the structural issues we are facing, which are very serious. The invisible hand does not always work and will not work in the midst of a serious shock, which we are now living with.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to ask my colleague a question. The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I had a very simple question for him, namely, what is an investment? He replied, of course, that it is capital put into equipment or a means of production, and that it therefore falls under the category of assets.

I was also told that the new unit of measurement is similar to that used in Quebec, and I think my colleague is very familiar with the difference between Quebec's infrastructure plan, the PQI, and current expenditures. Here is my question. With all this talk of owning equipment, what does the federal government really have to show for its so-called investment?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, our interpretation differs from that of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We disagree with him, but I would also like to point out that we are not hiding anything in the budget.

The deficit is there. The $68 billion is there. There is nothing hidden, but we believe that measures such as tax credits that support and accelerate investment should be considered an investment measure.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, can my colleague remind the House how this investment budget truly supports families, businesses and the regions of Quebec and Canada, particularly at a time when some parties would rather engage in fearmongering and sensationalism?

The Conservatives voted against the budget, as did the Bloc Québécois members, who are always saying that what is good for Quebec is good for them.

Could you explain why, contrary to what they are saying, this budget represents a responsible, ambitious and future-oriented approach, far removed from the alarmist rhetoric that we have been hearing so much of from our colleagues opposite?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I would like to remind the hon. member that I am unable to respond to him. However, I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary will do so.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are many measures in the budget, several of which are particularly good for Quebec. I am talking about our ongoing unwavering support for culture, for Radio-Canada, for example. We are also supporting the social programs that make Canada what it is.

We are not like other countries. We believe that we have a duty to help one another and to stand together. Programs like the Canada child benefit, the national school food program and old age security are well worth continuing. They must be maintained, and that is what we are doing.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the member: One, was he making the point in his speech that this is an austerity budget? Two, will he confirm for me, as he been a finance minister before, that deficit spending does drive inflation?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not think I have enough time, as this is a very important issue. However, no and no, in the sense that this is not an austerity budget, but what the Conservatives are proposing would be a toxic austerity budget, and a deficit of this magnitude at this time does not lead to inflation.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to stand here this morning to speak on behalf of the many hard-working constituents in Provencher, my riding, to address this budget implementation act.

A government is judged by the condition of its people. Our Prime Minister stated that he should be judged by the prices at the grocery store. As of today, that would be a failing grade. After only eight months, the Prime Minister is already a failure by his own measure. After ten years of Liberal promises, Canadians are poorer, families are struggling to feed themselves, the young cannot start their lives and the old cannot finish their lives in peace.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer called the government's path “stupefying”, “shocking” and “unsustainable”, and said, “if you don't change, this is done.”

The warning could not be clearer, and it reminds me of an old urban legend. This is a transcript of a radio conversation of a U.S. naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995, and the radio conversation was released by the chief of naval operations on October 10, 1995.

The Americans, in their first radio transmission, asked the Canadians to please divert their course 15° to the north to avoid a collision.

The Canadians said that they recommend that the Americans divert their course 15° to the south to avoid a collision. The captain of the U.S. naval ship responded, saying that he is the captain of a U.S. Navy ship, so he would again advise the Canadians to divert their course. The Canadians say again that the Americans should divert their course.

The Americans responded that they are the American carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States Atlantic fleet, and that they were accompanied by destroyers, cruisers and support vessels. They demanded that the Canadians change their course 15° north.

The Canadians responded that they were in a lighthouse, so it was the Americans' call.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer is our lighthouse, and the Liberals have abandoned all of their previous fiscal anchors. It does not matter how large the Prime Minister's ego is, how global his resume is, how many so-called expert bureaucrats he surrounds himself with, or how loudly he insists that the laws of economics will divert 15° any which way to his will. Reality does not move.

The collision course is set, and the warning light is fixed, but the government is refusing to turn. The Prime Minister's capital budgeting framework hides debt by counting spending as an investment. The Prime Minister spent his career on Bay Street, so maybe it is no surprise that he is still cooking books. In the private sector, he called it creative finance. In government, he calls it capital budgeting.

Conservatives know what it is. It is a credit card budget. Canada now has the fastest-shrinking economy in the G7, a $78.3-billion deficit and interest costs of $55.6 billion annually, which is more than the Canada health transfer and more than the government collects in GST.

Canadians were promised expert prudence. They got more debt. They asked only for honesty and for a government that lives within its means and tells the truth about the books. The Prime Minister campaigned on the promise that we would do things previously thought impossible at speeds we have not seen in generations, but now he warns young Canadians that, because of his failures, we will not transform our economy easily or in a few months, and it will cost sacrifices and take time.

The Prime Minister promised to make life more affordable. Every sign shows the opposite. Food prices are rising nearly 40% faster in Canada than in the U.S. Over 2.1 million Canadians use food banks each and every month, and nearly one in five visitors are employed but still unable to afford food. A few days ago, a friend of mine and his wife went to the grocery store. They set a limit of $200. As they filled their cart, he kept his iPhone calculator in hand, adding up the price of every item. By the time they reached $200, the cart was still nearly empty. It was a few basics, no luxuries, and the bill was already full.

That is the reality for families across the country today. Not long ago, that same $200 would have filled the cart to the top. Most Canadians remember it well, before the Liberal lost decade hollowed out the dollar and drove up the cost of everything. While Canadians count every dollar in the checkout line, the Prime Minister pretends to understand their struggle. He may stage his photo ops in grocery aisles, but let us be honest: He is not the one doing the shopping. The global elite, as he refers to himself, do not push their own carts or calculate the cost of milk.

This budget would make food even more expensive. The industrial carbon tax hits farmers and agri-food on fertilizer, machinery and manufacturing costs. The Liberal fuel standard adds a 17¢-per-litre cost to the price of diesel and gasoline. The Liberal packaging tax adds billions throughout the food supply chain. Food inflation is now so severe that Food Banks Canada gave the Prime Minister an F on poverty and food insecurity. Canadians do not need to settle for this. They remember a time when a fair wage meant a full grocery cart, when the government lived within its means and when ordinary people could afford an ordinary life.

The government said it would build more homes and bring prices down. Instead, housing starts have collapsed 17%, mortgage payments are up two-thirds since 2020, builders are cutting staff and young Canadians with full-time jobs are being told to rent for life.

Canada is expected to rank second worst in the OECD for per capita growth from 2025 to 2030. Investment per worker has fallen 10%, while in the United States, it has risen by 22%.

The Prime Minister said he would spend less and invest more, but what did we get? We got higher spending, lower investment and a larger deficit. Families now pay the price each time they buy food, renew a mortgage or watch their children give up on home ownership dreams.

The new capital budgeting framework was sold as innovation, but was called “overly expansive” and referred to as exceeding international practice by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It counts subsidies and housing programs as assets. Imagine that. It turns spending into investment and shrinks the deficit on paper, while our deficit and debt keep rising. This pattern defines the government's record.

The Prime Minister promised discipline, but has increased spending by 8% since taking office. He promised transparency, but delayed the public accounts past its legal deadline. He promised a falling debt-to-GDP ratio, yet the PBO confirms it is climbing for the first time in 30 years.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer has done his duty and warned that this path cannot continue. It is Parliament's responsibility to divert its course.

Behind every number is a life that's made harder. The over two million food bank visits in March are not statistics; they are families choosing between groceries and rent, seniors skipping meals for medicine and parents working extra shifts so their children can eat.

Housing shows the same decline. The government's own agency warns that homebuilding will drop 13% over the next three years. Mortgage rates have reached heights not seen in recent years, builders are cutting staff and couples who might have built families are being forced to wait.

Farmers who feed the nation carry the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and machinery, the 17¢ Liberal fuel standard and the billion-dollar packaging tax that adds billions to the food chain. These measures have made Canadian food unaffordable.

Canadians deserve a government that treats public money as a trust. The Conservative vision begins with restraint and the discipline to live within our means and spend for the good of everyday Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has already warned the government that its fiscal path is unsustainable, and that borrowing will exceed statutory limits by year-end 2026‑27. No government has the right to hand a country steeped in debt to its children and grandchildren.

The Conservative plan begins with one rule: Every new dollar of spending must be matched by a dollar saved. Waste in bureaucracy, consultants and corporate welfare must end before new promises are made.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported $53.9 billion in lost investments since the government took office. We will bring that investment home by rewarding production, by lowering taxes on work, homebuilding and energy, and by unlocking resource development instead of delaying it.

Taxation must again be fair. Families should not bear the cost of a government that spends for political gains. Ending the industrial carbon tax, the Liberal clean fuel standard of 17¢ a litre and the $1-billion packaging tax will lift the burden on farmers, manufacturers, families and, ultimately, all Canadian households. If the government will not divert its course, the opposition will.

A budget that puts Canadians first by telling the truth and respecting taxpayers is not an ambition; it is our responsibility to the Canadian people.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Provencher and I do good work together on the industry committee. It is a committee that is fundamentally charged with economic growth.

He referred to a number of matters. I want to talk about economic growth and ask him about some of the measures in this budget bill that would spur economic growth.

I am particularly interested in his views on some of the Manitoba-focused investments and plans. Two come to mind that I understand might be of interest to him. These are the announcement of the intention to expand free trade discussions with India and the inclusion of the port of Churchill in our plans for infrastructure expansion.

I want to know the hon. member's comments on those issues.