Debates of Nov. 27th, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that member gets really hot under the collar when people remind him that he has supported every Liberal budget since 2015. When Bill Morneau was the finance minister, I criticized him for allowing our debt to rise over $1 trillion. This member said nothing then. We went past $2 trillion, and we are now working our way to $2.5 trillion under the current government, but he is still saying nothing.

I would get hot under the collar too if I was upset with myself, listening to criticisms that made me think twice, but that would mean the member would have to think at all. I have to think about that, whether he actually does.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague compared the current Prime Minister to former prime minister Trudeau, saying that they were exactly the same. Allow me to disagree.

These days, Quebec television programs are comparing the current Prime Minister to Stephen Harper. We can look to the budget to see if that is true. That comparison is not far-fetched at all, considering that the budget contains a measure that will gift $100 billion in tax credits to the oil and gas industry.

That is irresponsible on two fronts, whether in fiscal terms and or in terms of assisting an industry that rakes in record profits year after year while worsening climate change by producing ever-growing amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

Does my colleague agree with me that the current Prime Minister is less like Mr. Trudeau, and more like Stephen Harper?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, with both the Liberal Party and the Bloc saying Stephen Harper this and Stephen Harper that, I think they have lost the plot. We just had an election in which the Prime Minister looked Canadians in the eye hundreds of times, even voters in this gentleman's province of Quebec.

The Prime Minister promised the people of the beautiful province of Quebec and across the country that he would spend less. That is not a promise I take lightly.

I do not take it lightly when someone makes a commitment, reverses himself and then says we are the problem because we do not understand. The Prime Minister made a promise to all of us that he would spend less, but he brought us a budget that does the opposite. That is the problem.

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

Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that if they have a bad credit rating, it will cost them more to borrow money. Lately, Fitch talked about the Liberal government and raised the alarm that it is going to drop its credit rating to AA+ instead of where we are now, which will cost us more than the already billions of dollars that we are transferring to pay the interest on the debt.

Is the member concerned about that as well?

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I believe that this year, we are at about $52 billion a year just to cover the debt management program. I remember raising the same questions and concerns with Bill Morneau when he was the minister of finance, when we had just over $1 trillion in debt. Now we are over $2 trillion in just a short period of time, less than 10 years later. We are right to be concerned. In my home province of British Columbia, the B.C. NDP promised more spending than revenues in its budgets, and it was downgraded.

The member is correct that all of us in British Columbia are paying more in debt for the privilege of just servicing the debt. This is not going down on principle. On principle, as a country, we should be saying that we need to pay attention to the lines of where this is going. This is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would love to say it is a pleasure for me to take the floor today to speak to Bill C-15, but it is the opposite of a pleasure. It is reliving a nightmare.

I am going to start by pointing out a few things that have been missed in the discussion of the budget and the budget implementation act.

First, I want to share with colleagues something I do not think anyone has mentioned, and I wish we could do something about it, which is the decision of the Prime Minister that budgets shall henceforth only happen in the fall. To all my colleagues, who just went through a nail-biter of a budget vote in which the plea was that we needed to pass the budget or we would have a Christmas election, if we always have a fall budget, we will always face that threat: If we actually consider the budget properly, study it properly and perhaps even defeat it, we will face a Christmas election. This needs to be revisited. We cannot just accept that budgets are always henceforth in the fall with this new threat.

Second, on principle, I object again and again to an omnibus budget bill changing things that were scarcely mentioned in the budget itself. This is a position of principle that I have taken for many years. I would like to refer the House, to save time, to interventions I made in the 41st Parliament, in Hansard volume 146, to a point of order that was detailed on June 4, 2012, in which I pointed out the many ways in which omnibus budget bills are offensive to democracy and the ways in which, on principle, Parliament should be able to properly study all elements of legislation and not have them bound together. Particularly when saying it is all about the budget, one must at least make sure the budget itself mentions that this change is coming. There are a number of places in which that is not the case.

In light of my reference to historical background on this point, omnibus budget bills came into fashion in the Harper years. Justin Trudeau promised he would not bring in omnibus budget implementation acts, but then he did. However, they were never as long as this. For Canadians who do not know, the budget implementation bill runs to more than 600 pages. It took me a while to read all of it, and I have, which means it has taken me a while to discover sections I find particularly offensive.

Again, this is not the budget itself. This is Bill C-15, which was only recently brought in for consideration in this place.

With all due respect to our current Speaker, I think the greatest Speaker Parliament has ever had was Lucien Lamoureux. In 1971, he said that budget implementation bills or, for that matter, omnibus bills of all kinds are a slippery slope for democracy. He was referring to omnibus bills of all kinds. Speaker Lamoureux pointed out, “we might reach the point where we would have only one bill” tabled at the beginning of the opening of a new Parliament, in which the government said that the bill would better the lives of Canadians, and it would contain all the legislation for the session to be passed all at once. He then said, “That would be an omnibus bill with a capital ‘O’ and a capital ‘B’”, but he went on to say that we are not there yet.

I worry that we are getting there. I was informed recently by someone in government that while Bill C-15 is an omnibus budget bill to implement budget 2025, it is in fact only part one of an omnibus budget bill to implement the 2025 budget, which is to say that we could be awaiting another 600-page piece of legislation coming sometime soon.

One has to ask a question about a number of measures in the budget that we find in the budget implementation act, and I wish we had time to study the bill properly, but we will not. This question is, why have the Liberals used the mechanism of special operating agencies to bring in numerous new bureaucracies, such as the Major Projects Office and Build Canada Homes? There are a number of them, and they will never have the transparency that they would if they had been brought in properly as agencies that were properly studied individually.

I am also particularly concerned that we should have built “Canada first” into this budget. I completely agree that it is a good idea to get rid of a luxury sales tax on certain products, but it should have the caveat that they are built in Canada.

There is nothing wrong with a luxury sales tax on airplanes, cars or boats that Canadians buy overseas, but domestic manufacturers were being damaged by this tax, particularly in my own riding. Recreational vessels would hardly be considered a luxury item for someone who lives on the coast. In any case, that would be removed and I am glad it would be removed. However, why not focus on Canada first and have that tax apply only to luxury products that are made outside of Canada?

Last, a number of things are quite disturbing to me. As members know, I voted for the budget, but there are things in the budget implementation act that were never mentioned in the budget itself. I know I cannot use props, but when speaking of the item itself in debate, there is an allowance for saying “in this book”.

I read the budget, and we were not given the full budget in the written document. We had to later get a memory stick, and it contained annex 5, which contains the legislative changes that were going to be made. Annex 5 is not in the text of the budget in the written, bound book, as we understand it, but it said there would be amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It is the first time the government has proposed to eliminate the five-year termination date for equivalency and administrative agreements.

There is concern about that in the environmental community. Why are we touching the Canadian Environmental Protection Act at all and the agreements that go to the question of protecting Canadians from toxic substances? Because this is an omnibus budget bill and because it is moving quickly, we are very unlikely to have a chance to study or properly debate this or even see these sections referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development.

If it can get worse, it gets worse. When I went through the budget implementation act, it was not until I got to page 536 that I found out the Liberals would not just change the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, as mentioned in annex 5 but not in the printed budget itself. By the time we get to pages 536 and 537 in division 32, clauses 548 to 549, we find that they would also change the International River Improvements Act, the Canada Wildlife Act, the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Antarctic Environmental Protection Act. Of course, we knew they would change the greenhouse gas pricing bills and remove other provisions that had to do with climate, but that was foretold. In division 42, again, there are changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that were not included in announcements or in the budget document itself.

I find myself looking at the budget implementation act as separate legislation from the budget itself, as it is. I want to vote for some of what is in the budget implementation act. I like that we see the school lunch program. I like that we see a continuation of good programs, particularly for the social safety net. However, I wonder why we would not be able to properly study the creation of entirely new agencies. It was not until I got to page 448 of the budget implementation act that I found we would be creating yet another entity, or bureaucracy as the Conservatives would call it. There would be a Canada development investment corporation, to be created but not to be studied.

Omnibus budget bills are an abomination, and bills of 400 pages are an offence to democracy and to Parliament. They can never be properly studied. They can only be pushed through with the rallying cry “If we do not pass it, we are stuck with a Christmas election”. God bless everyone.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I go to questions and comments, I note that the member very artfully skidded the line with the use of props in her hand.

Questions and comments, the chief government whip.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member certainly is extremely judicious in her approach, and that is the theme of my question.

I respect the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for not only her passion for the environment, but also her passion for setting the record straight. Recently, she heard the House leader of the opposition, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, talk about the oil tanker ban, and she went to her social media platforms to set the record straight on the Hecate Strait.

She did that quite elegantly, and I really enjoyed the opportunity to learn about the west coast and exactly what is happening there as it relates to the tanker bans but, more importantly, about the misinformation being spread by Conservatives. I am wondering if the member would like to take the opportunity to do that again now.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Regina—Qu'Appelle went wrong in his commentary. I hate the misuse of the English language by saying “the exact same”; it is redundant, but the the tanker ban, which I fear may be overturned as of today by the MOU, applies to areas of the northwest coast of British Columbia, and the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle said it did not apply to U.S. tankers that were using “the exact same” route. That is not the case. U.S. tankers use a completely different route from that covered by the offshore tanker ban. When leaving from Alaska with oil or heading from refineries in Washington state, they are completely to the west of the British Columbia coastline. They are far west of Haida Gwaii, west of our coastline—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge my colleague from British Columbia and leader of the Green Party.

Many Canadians were surprised last week when the member asked the Prime Minister if he would respect the Paris Agreement, to which he said that he would indeed respect it. The Green Party member ultimately decided to support the Liberal government's budget. The Prime Minister gave exactly the same answer he gave two weeks earlier.

With everything that happened in Alberta today, is the Green Party leader still proud of supporting the Liberal government?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course the Prime Minister told me what I wanted to hear. What I wanted to know from the Prime Minister is that the commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming to about 2°C, which we committed to through the Paris Agreement, will be honoured and that this is possible.

Today, in light of the agreement with Ms. Smith from Alberta, I think it is almost impossible to reconcile these two things.

The Prime Minister may be able—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Drummond.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to pick up where my Conservative colleague left off. My question to the leader of the Green Party is one I ask with both consternation and curiosity, as there was a great deal of speculation around her support for the budget prior to the vote. It was not completely clear, but it seems that she found reassurance in commitments made by the Prime Minister.

Today, I find it hard to imagine that the leader of the Green Party is not feeling betrayed by the Prime Minister's commitment, firstly regarding the Paris Agreement, and then the encroachment he is authorizing on practically every jurisdiction to get a pipeline carrying oil from Alberta out to the Pacific Ocean. I would really like to hear what she thinks about that.

What does she think of what the Prime Minister said? On a scale of one to 10, how does she rate what the Prime Minister said today, with everything we are finding out?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is tough. It is true that it is practically impossible to honour both the commitment to the Paris Agreement and the agreement with Alberta at the same time. I will always do my best.

I will hold the Prime Minister accountable. He made a promise on the floor of the House of Commons. He does not get to duck it a week later.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, federal budgets are not just about numbers on a page. They at least should not be about just numbers on a page. They must be about addressing the cost of groceries for struggling families and about the price of gas for workers who depend on their vehicles to earn a living. They should be about whether or not young Canadians can afford a home. As I said, at least they should be about that. The Liberals, though, unfortunately fall far short of that mark.

During the election campaign, the Liberals pledged to get their spending and their deficits under control, but what does this budget offer instead? There will be a $78-billion deficit this year alone and projections of $321 billion in new debt over five years, more than double what was promised. What was promised was too much already. It is a worse record than that of Justin Trudeau, who was the worst prime minister in Canadian history up until now. This is not just a broken promise; it is a cynical, self-serving betrayal of trust.

Every dollar borrowed today is a dollar that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back with interest. Let us not forget that interest payments are already exceeding what is spent on health care transfers in this country. This is not compassion; it is fiscal recklessness. It is all over the place in this budget.

The budget locks Canadians into a cycle of debt that will last for decades and decades. Thanks to the government, Canadians are already paying over $50 billion annually in interest, money that could fund things Canadians need or, better yet, be left in the pockets of taxpayers, who earned that money in the first place.

Let us look at the opportunity cost that is being squandered by continuing to rack up the national credit card. Imagine what $50 billion in annual interest payments could do. It could build dozens of hospitals. It could build maybe 1,000 schools. Some 4,100 kilometres of new roads could be built. It could cover nearly half of Canada's 5% NATO commitment for our defence spending to ensure that we finally properly equip the men and women of Canada's Armed Forces. Best of all, it could give the average Canadian family nearly $5,000 a year in tax relief.

Instead, that money just vanishes into thin air, into debt servicing. The Liberals continue to choose to increase that debt and therefore the cost of that debt. As a result, they line the pockets of bondholders and bankers, their Liberal friends. They call that investing in the future, but every extra $1 billion that is borrowed today is actually a burden on Canadians who are not yet born, locking them into decades of repayments for sunk costs instead of leaving them with the means and resources to invest in their own futures and their own priorities.

I call the Liberals' debt and deficits approach what it really is: passing the bill for Liberal priorities today to Canada's children of tomorrow. Adding more government, more bureaucracy and more layers of red tape seems to be the Liberals' answer to every challenge. Their solution is to create new agencies, new programs and new bureaucracies that slow down progress and stifle innovation.

Let us think about some of the things they have done recently. We have an issue in this country with being able to get major projects built. Rather than removing a lot of the barriers and obstacles that already exist, which the Liberals, frankly, created, they have said to just build a whole new bureaucracy to decide if we might be able to exempt some of those things from the bureaucracy we already have. Well, how about just removing some of the obstacles and actually seeing things get built? That would make a lot more sense.

It is the same thing when it comes to building homes. Everyone in the home construction industry and everyone who is trying to buy a home already recognizes that the biggest cost going into the construction of a new home nowadays is complying with government, whether it is on taxation, red tape or bureaucracy. Instead of dealing with knocking that down, the Liberals are just going to build a whole other bureaucracy to supposedly build homes. More bureaucracy on top of bureaucracy, which is more of the same problem on top of the problem that already exists, is not going to get homes built.

It is the same thing when we talk about equipping our Canadian Armed Forces. It is great to hear of new investments being put in, but what the Liberals are going to do is spend all that money on new bureaucracy and consultants. What I am afraid of is that at the end of the day, there will be nothing left to buy the equipment and resources that our men and women in uniform need.

More and more bureaucracy is not the challenge. Canadians do not need more office towers full of bureaucrats. They need homes they can afford, jobs they can count on and a government that gets out of the way so that projects can get built. Instead, they are getting more of the same failed Liberal policies in a new package.

Why does this matter? It matters because every dollar borrowed today drives inflation tomorrow. It means higher taxes, smaller paycheques and fewer opportunities for Canadians.

White Rock Youth Ambassadors

[Ernie Klassen, Liberal, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the White Rock Youth Ambassadors, a youth program in my community that predates the city of White Rock, British Columbia, itself. Launched in 1952 as the Miss White Rock pageant, a beauty contest, this initiative has evolved into a youth mentorship program benefiting hundreds of young people within the community.

In the midst of the pandemic, the program threatened to shut down right when youth needed it most. Fortunately, new leaders Suzanne Smith and Dionne Archer-Smith revived the program, ensuring that this 73-year-old tradition continues. Today, Miss White Rock Wenshu Ding and her eight fellow young men and women ambassadors are inspiring their generation to lead through volunteerism and a love of community.

I have had the privilege of working alongside these outstanding young leaders in my riding. With a program like White Rock Youth Ambassadors in Canada, the future is optimistic and bright.

Wildfires in Newfoundland and Labrador

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

Mr. Speaker, this summer, wildfires swept across my district and our province. Families lost their homes, their businesses and the places that shaped their lives. Through it all, our firefighters, first responders and volunteers worked courageously day and night, and we thank them for their tireless efforts.

However, what defines us in Newfoundland and Labrador is how we show up for others. Communities rallied together and local businesses stepped up, including the Mess Tent Poutinerie, which helped feed firefighters, first responders and volunteers with donated food and supplies from across the region.

As recovery continues, my office is working closely with the province and the federal government to ensure that every family and business affected by these fires receives fair and timely compensation.

At the same time, we need to work together on both sides of this aisle to have better forest management and better disaster prevention and relief technologies. Today, as a symbol of renewal and celebration, we hear that the Red Ochre Café is reopening. We rebuild together.

Ian Ross

[Ginette Lavack, Liberal, St. Boniface—St. Vital, MB]

Mr. Speaker, last week, Manitoba's theatre community suffered a profound and heartbreaking loss with the sudden passing of Ian Ross, the celebrated Métis Ojibway playwright, storyteller and educator, at the age of 57.

Rooted in Winnipeg, Ian reshaped Canadian theatre. His groundbreaking play, fareWel, a dark, courageous comedy set on a fictional first nations reserve, earned him the Governor General's Award for English Drama, making him the first indigenous playwright to ever receive that honour. His work travelled as far as the Edinburgh Festival Fringe and touched audiences across the country. Through his work, he challenged us to see this country more clearly, with humour, honesty and unflinching humanity. His voice became iconic through “Joe from Winnipeg”, a character whose wit and warmth became a part of our cultural memory.

Today, we pay tribute to his extraordinary legacy and extend our sincere condolences to his family, his community and all those he inspired.

May his stories continue to guide and uplift us.

Veterans Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, Maple Ridge is home to the largest Royal Canadian Legion in Canada, Branch 88, with over 2,000 members. As a 20-year member and a veteran myself, I am honoured to rise for those who have served. I also recognize Mission's Branch 57 and ANAVETS Branch 379, whose volunteers work to support veterans and honour those who have sacrificed for the country.

Too many veterans are now struggling under the crushing cost of living crises created by the Liberal government. Others are on the street homeless. Liberals have hundreds of millions of dollars for a deal with the European Space Agency that will benefit the Prime Minister's company, Brookfield, but they are slashing over $4 billion in Veterans Affairs. There are reports of veterans being contacted about assisted suicide, presumably to cut costs and services.

Our veterans deserve dignity, not despair. They deserve support, not having to balance government's wastefulness on their backs.

Normand Lapointe

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

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to Normand Lapointe, a federal Liberal member for Beauce from 1980 to 1984, who passed away in Saint-Georges on October 22.

A man of conviction with deep ties to his community, Mr. Lapointe left his mark on regional politics through his sense of duty, his connection with residents, and his sincere commitment to serving the common good. A true mentor to many local elected officials and stakeholders, he inspired many of us with his attentiveness, his humility and his dedication. Until the very end, he championed a vision of a just and unified Beauce that is proud of its roots. His kindness, his simplicity and his ability to listen reflected a genuine attachment to Beauce and the people who shape it day by day.

On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, we extend our sincerest condolences to his family, his friends, and to everyone who had the privilege of knowing him. His human and political legacy will live on in the collective memory of the people of Beauce.

Faith Communities in Kildonan—St. Paul

[Raquel Dancho, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this year we celebrate remarkable milestones in Manitoba's faith community: the 100th anniversary of St. Anthony of Padua Parish and St. Mary the Protectress Ukrainian Orthodox Cathedral, as well as the 200th anniversary of St. Paul's Anglican Church. I am proud to represent all three.

For a century, St. Anthony of Padua Parish has strengthened neighbourhoods through compassionate service. St. Mary the Protectress has been a place of belonging for generations of Ukrainian Canadians, and St. Paul's Anglican carries a rich pioneer history sustained through war, hardship and renewal.

These contributions reflect what faith communities across Canada do every single day. However, many places of worship continue to face vandalism and arson. No faith tradition should fear for the safety of its sacred places, and that is why we support robust protections for places of worship, including measures in Conservative Bill C-255 to hold offenders accountable.

As we honour 100 and 200 years of faith and service in our community, let us recommit to safeguarding the places that give Canadians hope and spiritual refuge.

Men's Health

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as November ends, let us look back at the tragic data on men's mental and physical health in Canada. Too many men are dying young from preventable causes.

Men account for 75% of suicides and 72% of opioid deaths. They are at higher risk for cardiac disease, chronic lung disease and many cancers. However, stigma and pride in being macho prevent them from seeking help, and 65% of men say that they delay seeing a doctor for symptoms of mental and physical health.

Men's health is not a partisan issue. It is a health imperative. Delayed care costs lives and harms families. As the mother of three men, I say let us break the silence, remove the stigma, advocate for research funding and mental health supports, and ensure confidential access to care.

Let us speak up and speak out. We can move men's health out of the shadows and protect and support our fathers, husbands and sons.

Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group

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

Mr. Speaker, 75 years ago, a bricklayer arrived on Canadian shores from Italy seeking a better life, and 75 years later, the granddaughter of that bricklayer serves in Canada's Parliament.

As a daughter of Italian immigrants, I am proud to represent my community of King—Vaughan. On Tuesday, I had the honour of being elected chair of the Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group. I look forward to working with all parliamentarians and with Ambassador Cattaneo to advance diplomatic relations between our two nations and explore new opportunities.

Canada and Italy share a deep connection through over 1.6 million Canadians of Italian descent. Italian Canadians have left their mark on communities from coast to coast to coast. Canada's Conservatives stand united and ready to work with everyone in the best interest of Canada.

Viva ltalia. Viva Canada.