Debates of Nov. 27th, 2025

Natural Resources

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, at no time during the campaign did the Prime Minister say the tanker ban would be lifted or changed. B.C. coastal first nations are saying loud and clear that the tanker ban is not up for negotiation, and no MOU will change that.

The secret deal signed behind closed doors without B.C. and first nations at the table is a betrayal. Enbridge 2.0 will not proceed without first nations' free, prior and informed consent, and B.C. will not stand for it.

Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that this is a pipeline to nowhere but the courts and stop wasting everyone's time with this political posturing?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as I believe this is the last question, we can see the span of views in this chamber. It is interesting to me that it is a Liberal government and the Liberal Party that finds the co-operative, consensual way forward.

Of course, in response to the member, we will work with and have a duty to consult first nations. Of course, we will work with and have a duty to work with the Province of British Columbia, as we do indeed with the Province of Alberta. This is a visionary agreement today, a memorandum of understanding that sets a course for the future of western Canada.

Business of the House

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is every CPAC viewer's favourite day of the week, Thursday, when we have the Thursday question.

I would like to ask the government House leader if he can inform the House what we will be dealing with for the rest of this week and into next week.

Instead of a flashy MOU that has a carbon tax hike with no guarantee of a pipeline, will the Liberals bring in legislation to repeal the anti-energy laws that have kept the oil and gas in the ground and made Canada so dependent on the United States, or will they continue their habit of sending subsidized energy to the U.S. to fund the U.S. economy instead of the Canadian economy?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will not trouble members once more today with the exciting details of our memorandum of understanding with the Province of Alberta, but I will provide some transparency and clarity, as always, on the way forward for Parliament in the spirit of co-operation and transparency as we work with my honourable friend and, indeed, all members of the House.

This afternoon, we will continue the debate at second reading of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget.

Tomorrow, we will call Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, at second reading.

On Monday, we will see the House return to the third-reading debate of Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians, which contains tax cuts. Indeed, I am sure the Conservatives will want to hurry that bill off to the Senate.

On Tuesday, we will resume the second-reading debate of Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

On Wednesday and Thursday, we will begin debate at report stage and third reading of Bill C‑12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures.

For the benefit of those committees studying the supplementary estimates, I believe Tuesday, December 9 will be the final allotted day of the supply cycle, but I will confirm this at this time next week.

I also want to mention that there will be a ministerial statement on Thursday, December 4 to commemorate the Polytechnique massacre.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget Implementation Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, this budget does not tackle the real obstacles to growth. Instead of unlocking resource projects, building pipelines or enabling housing construction, the Liberals are busy picking winners and losers, leaving national projects that could create thousands of jobs stalled under mountains of red tape and regulation. Conservatives have a different vision, and that would be to get rid of some of the policies that are crippling our industries in this country, slash red tape and let Canadians build and prosper.

I wanted to talk for just a second or two about our veterans in this country, those who have paid the ultimate price for our country, those who have served and those who have sacrificed. Although the Liberals are running a $78-billion deficit and spending like it is going out of style, the one area they choose to cut deeply is the services and benefits that our veterans rely on. There are $4 billion in cuts to the services our veterans rely on, which they have earned through their service for this country.

Now there is this question mark hanging over all those benefits, because there are no clear answers, timelines or transparency on what those cuts are going to be, but it is creating a lot of stress and a lot of anxiety for those who have already sacrificed so much for this country. That is not leadership. That is not realistically meeting challenges. That is just cynical, sneaky and utterly shameful.

I want to contrast what we have seen in this budget with what Conservatives believe in. We believe in a Canada where the government serves the ambitions of the people and not the other way around. We have proposed solutions that would help to lift Canada out of the deep hole that we find ourselves in now, after ten years of Liberal government. We do this because Canada is one nation, and our fortunes, all political persuasions aside, are intertwined.

Conservatives simply want the best for Canadians, and after bearing witness to this decade of misguided, inept and too often corrupt Liberal government, we can clearly see that the Liberals are going to continue to repeat the mistakes of the past, those same mistakes that have caused Canada's economic future to go completely off the rails. We therefore offer alternatives to what has not worked.

We would be pleased for the government to take us up on our proposals. While they crib and water down some of our versions solutions, they never commit to the full and needed action. Our Conservative plan is clear. If we were to form government, we would end inflationary deficits and restore fiscal discipline. We would cut wasteful spending and bureaucracy instead of growing it. We would unlock resource projects to create jobs and generate revenue. We would lower taxes so Canadians could afford to eat and heat and house themselves. We would protect veterans with the benefits they earned and not claw them back.

That is how we would right the fiscal ship in Canada. That is how we would secure a future of opportunity, not through yet more crushing debt on our children and their grandchildren, and we certainly would not do it by introducing new layers of bureaucracy that set up delays and hurdles to the very solutions that Canada needs.

This budget is not a plan for prosperity; it is a plan for perpetual debt. It is a betrayal of promises, a burden on our kids and our grandkids, and a blueprint for bureaucratic bloat. Canadians know that they deserve better. They deserve a government that trusts them, that empowers them and that believes in their ability to build a stronger Canada. That is what the country needs, and that is what Conservatives offer, because a federal budget should not just be about graphs and pie charts; it should be a document with a serious plan to empower Canadians who want to afford a home, families who need relief from rising costs and veterans who deserve peace of mind that the promises their country made to them in return for their service will be kept by the government.

Canadians deserve better than the Liberal go-to of yet more debt and more bureaucracy, with the can of real solutions being kicked once again further and further down the road. That is why Conservatives will oppose this budget.

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

Mr. Speaker, the only part that I really agree with the member opposite on is when he was talking about the issue of leadership coming out of the last national election. He is right, in the sense that Canadians have a high expectation, and that is the reason the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party received more votes in the last federal election than in the history of our party and, in fact, the history of Canada.

At the end of the day, it is a very clear mandate, and the Prime Minister is living up to that mandate. We are not going to settle for any deal with the United States. We are going to take the time to get the best deal possible for Canada. Not only that, but we are going to continue to look abroad and expand our export markets. Does the member disagree with those two principles?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member just demonstrated, exactly, the problem with the Liberals. When we think back to about six months ago, during the election, they had a very different story to tell than what we are hearing from the member today.

That is the problem with the Liberals. They keep changing their story every single day. No one can rely on anything they say, and no one can count on them, ever, to do anything. All they do is make excuses and continue to change their story. Canadians deserve much better than that. That is not leadership. That is not even honesty. Canadians deserve much better. They will get it from the Conservatives in the next election.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I had the opportunity to work together when he was his party's whip. I know that he is a diligent and hard-working MP, and I want to ask him about the whole issue of seniors.

We were stunned to see that the budget included only one small program for seniors, the New Horizons for Seniors program. How can my colleague understand and accept that seniors did not get an increase in their old age pension?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that what the question really illustrates is how badly the government has failed Canadians. I think that what the people who were looking for something in the budget saw was a government that wants to build up more and more bureaucracy.

I mentioned veterans in my speech. The member mentioned seniors. Families, young Canadians looking to afford a home, people who cannot afford to put food on the table and everyone who is struggling in the country, and there are far too many people who are struggling because of the 10 years of the Liberal government, looked at the budget as something that would bring them some hope.

There was nothing for anyone in the budget, except for more bureaucracy.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

Before I begin, I want to recognize the life of Ray Hebert. Ray was a 45-year-old corporal with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He recently died of brain cancer. I offer my condolences to him and to his children. He was the son of Karen and Martin, the husband of Kate, brother of Adrian and father of Alice, Heather and Ben. I had the opportunity to work with him. I thank him for his service. May perpetual light shine upon him.

People like Ray, people who serve and work hard, expect that the government will be there for them. How is the government failing in that regard? I see so many ways in which it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could talk forever on this, but I know that I will not be able to. The bottom line is that those who have served our country deserve to have a government that is there for them. When they did that service, that is all they expected in return, help with the needs that they might have in the future. The government is failing them. It is that simple. There is a $78-billion deficit, but the one place where the government has decided to make cuts is to veterans, those who serve the country, who sacrifice for the country. There are $4 billion in cuts.

The worst part of it all is that Liberals have not been honest. They are not telling veterans or Canadians what those cuts are going to be. We know they are going to affect their benefits and services. They would have to if they are going to make the kind of cuts they are talking about. They do not know what, and it leaves veterans in a situation where they are afraid, concerned and scared for their futures because the government is failing them.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation bill. We have spent a lot of time this fall talking about the budget. We waited over a year and a half for it, and it was finally tabled.

If we look at the nature of Bill C-15, it is an omnibus bill nearly 650 pages long. Columnist Pierre-Yves McSween likened it to a work of great literature or a sweeping novel, because it is so thick. This bill contains 80 legislative measures, and it amends or creates close to 49 laws. It addresses almost none of the Bloc Québécois's priorities and is a jumble of technical, fiscal and structural measures. There is a lot to unpack in it.

One of the reasons the Bloc Québécois opposed it is that it includes billions of dollars in new fossil fuel subsidies. It extends the investment tax credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage until 2041. Small nuclear power plants, which are used by the oil and gas industry, are now included in the tax credits. The word “greenwashing” comes to mind. Expenditures relating to liquefied natural gas conversion are also categorized as eligible expenditures. I will try to get back to the environmental issue later in my speech.

Even more worryingly, Bill C‑15 is simply a dangerous piece of legislation. Bill C‑15 is like Bill C-5 on steroids. It allows the minister to exempt any company from the application of any federal law, except the Criminal Code, for a period of three years that is, in practice, renewable. This measure would allow for any company to be placed above the law. It is a principle that we find very worrying. This is a power hidden in clause 208 of the bill.

For all these reasons, we have many concerns. However, I will be speaking about the budget more from the perspective of housing and assistance for people who really need help, which is not addressed anywhere in the budget. I will also highlight some additional measures. Lastly, I will speak about media and culture. We will come back to this.

Let us start with Build Canada Homes, an empty shell of an agency with a budget of $11.5 billion but no detailed program. There is no guarantee regarding Quebec's share, which is causing worry for a lot of housing stakeholders. How much will Quebec get? People are asking me that question, because in the riding of Shefford, social and community housing is a major issue. Granby had one of the lowest vacancy rates for a long time, and the needs are still significant.

I commend the efforts of the municipality, which is tackling the problem head-on and is working very hard, but the federal government is also going to have to do its part. There is no distribution plan, no criteria and no allocation mechanisms for Build Canada Homes.

Here is another request from the Bloc Québécois that was not addressed. Aside from housing, we wanted first-time homebuyers to be able to access interest-free loans to help them with their down payments. Young people who want to buy their first home need that assistance. The Bloc Québécois asked for this ahead of the budget.

With regard to Build Canada Homes, seniors are also wondering how many social and community housing units will be allocated to meet the needs of seniors who are currently losing their homes. As the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, I have been hearing from people about this.

According to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 620,000 homes will need to be built in Quebec by 2030. Federal assistance has accounted for only 14% of housing funding in Quebec since 2018. Rents increased by an average of more than 7% in Quebec in 2024, while in Montreal, they increased by more than 18% for new tenants.

The budget did not renew and make permanent the rapid housing initiative, which in Quebec takes the form of a transfer intended for social and community housing. The Bloc Québécois had asked for this initiative to be renewed and made permanent. It is the only thing that was working well. We asked for this, but it is not in the budget, and that is a bit of a shame.

In terms of infrastructure, our local municipalities are asking for more resources to respond to new challenges, given the needs around climate adaptation and water supply. Recently, a local mayor was telling me about his municipality's water needs. He said he had managed to get some funding from the Quebec government, but the federal government had not chipped in.

The Bloc Québécois asked the government to create a new unconditional infrastructure transfer program for Quebec and the other provinces using a block funding approach. This does not appear in the budget.

With regard to seniors, there is no increase in old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74. However, according to the Hunger Count reports and SOS Dépannage in Granby, whose food drive kick-off I attended, the number of retirees and seniors needing food assistance is steadily rising. Despite these needs, there is still no additional help for those aged 65 to 74, who continue to be completely left out and who still do not have access to the 10% increase for those 75 and over. This inequity is creating a gap and leading to two classes of seniors. It is extremely concerning. Food bank workers, such as the worker in Montreal who recently talked to Radio-Canada, also recommend increasing old age security starting at age 65 in order to relieve the pressure on food banks. We all know that poverty and illness do not wait for people to turn 75 before they strike.

In the area of health, we still do not have the unconditional Canada health transfer top-up of $11.6 billion over five years that the Bloc Québécois had requested, and yet the need only continues to grow. The government is patting itself on the back for committing funding for hospitals in the last budget, but there is no guarantee that there will be sufficient health transfers to ensure good working conditions for the health care workers who would staff those hospitals. These unconditional health transfers are important, and they are something that Quebec and the other provinces are asking for.

Secondly, there are a few additional measures we can highlight that are not too bad, such as the elimination of the luxury tax on aircraft and ships. This will restart a stalled market. I was hearing from the people at BRP back home about this. The budget also introduces a personal support worker tax credit of up to $1,100. It expands critical mineral development, so there could be some significant opportunities for Quebec. There is a 15% clean electricity investment tax credit and a legislative framework for stablecoins. These are measures that are also found in the budget. I could also mention the high-speed rail project. The Bloc Québécois supports this concept, but we do have some concerns, because Ottawa is invoking its declaratory power to impose exclusive federal jurisdiction on a project that would normally fall under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Municipalities back home are also worried and are wondering what the federal government's vision is in terms of supporting their public transit plans and developing public transportation across Quebec. They get the impression that the federal government has given up on this altogether, even though public transportation is critical for fighting climate change and reducing our GHG emissions.

Third, I would like to address the impact of this budget on the media crisis. The budget permanently scraps the digital services tax, and yet this 3% tax would have generated $7.2 billion over five years. That is a major loss when it comes to funding media, arts and culture. No measures have been proposed to give electronic media the same tax credit as print media. Ultimately, the government is completely giving in to pressure from Trump's U.S. administration, which is imposing tariffs on countries that tax web giants. This is a step back for Ottawa, when several European countries have resisted. By abandoning this tax, Ottawa is losing a major lever in the trade negotiations.

There is no question about the vital importance of journalism, especially in a world where fake news is on the rise and generative AI is amplifying disinformation. However, the government is taking away essential tools for funding newsrooms. I am thinking of Cogeco Media and the TVA station in Sherbrooke, which are very worried following the losses they have suffered. It is extremely concerning. Since 2008, 469 local media outlets have closed in Canada, and more than 50% of them were in Quebec. Today, one Canadian in three lives in a community that is at risk of becoming a media desert. At the same time, Meta raked in $192 billion in profits in 2024 while paying almost no tax in Canada. TVA has announced 547 layoffs since 2023, and 34 local radio and television stations may close by 2026. The web giants pay an effective tax rate of about 4% in Canada, compared to 26% for SMEs. According to the OECD, Canada was one of the top 10 countries for digital tax revenue losses in 2023. The 3% tax that was recently repealed would have brought in $1.4 billion per year for Quebec, prorated for its demographic weight. Just imagine what we could have done with that money to support diversity in private, community and cultural media.

In closing, I will say a quick word about the environment. Since 2019, Ottawa has provided more than $18 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to fossil fuels. According to Environment Canada, the Ottawa-funded carbon capture project captures only 1% of oil companies' current emissions. Billions of dollars in public funds are being invested in the Pathways Plus project, which is a carbon sequestration project for oil and gas companies.

As for liquefied natural gas, its climate impact is 20% to 30% higher than reported when methane leaks are taken into account. Then there is the government's failure to reimburse, with no strings attached, the $814 million owed to Quebeckers who were excluded from the carbon tax rebate. There is even a new pipeline project that was announced today at the expense of first nations communities and British Columbia. What will happen in Quebec? Let us not forget that Canada even received the fossil of the day award at the most recent COP. This is extremely worrying.

One last thing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I take a look at the budget, there is so much in there for the entire country, but if I focus on the province of Quebec, I think of things like the aerospace industry with the military expenditures, the port of Montreal and so many other programs, including the enhancement of our arts and culture. There are so many positive things within the budget, yet the Bloc has made the determination to vote with the Conservatives against the budget and now the budget document, the budget implementation.

Does the member genuinely believe that the Conservatives would be better for her province and the people she represents?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the government can make the figures in the budget say whatever they want them to say. That is basically all I had left to say in my speech. The government has changed the accounting method for certain expenditures and investments, and there are now expenditures that are categorized as capital investments. This is quite worrying and it is one of the reasons why we are strongly opposed to this budget. That said, there are obviously other reasons too.

There are some worthwhile projects for Quebec, but I am also hearing a lot about what is not in the budget. When it comes to infrastructure, it is not true that cities have the money they need. Seniors, for their part, did not receive a penny in this budget. Our local media, TVA, Cogeco Média and others, say that the only money in the budget is for Radio-Canada. That does not help ensure a broad range of voices and media sources, which truly guarantees democracy in the regions. Apart from the fact that it contains a few small projects, this budget did not meet Quebeckers' expectations.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned many things that should have been included in the budget. Unfortunately, we have found that this budget includes many things that benefit Brookfield, not Canadians or Quebeckers.

One thing my colleague took the time to mention is the digital services tax, which has been abolished. This tax could have been used to help our traditional media outlets weather the difficult crisis they are currently facing. Unfortunately, the Liberals decided to scrap it.

When we look at Brookfield's assets, what do we see? We see that the company has interests in Meta, Alphabet and almost all the other big tech companies. Does my colleague agree with me that the government has presented a budget that favours Brookfield, but not Quebeckers or Canadians?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière for giving me the opportunity to explore this issue, the elephant in the room that nobody talks about enough: this Prime Minister's ethics. The more we dig into the budget today, the more we uncover. My colleague talked about Meta. I could talk about certain investments. One of the issues I talked about is nuclear energy, because we also know that the Prime Minister has investments in the nuclear industry.

Why is he so keen on a pipeline, and why is he working so hard to move this project forward with Alberta? It is because he has a stake in it. When we dig a little deeper, we discover that Brookfield has a stake in a lot of things. What we have here is a Prime Minister who set himself up like a corporate executive to promote his own interests, not the interests of Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's wonderful speech, which, as always, was informed by the needs of her community, her riding.

Since she is also the Bloc Québécois critic for the status of women, I would like to know her opinion on something major missing from the budget: measures for women who, upon returning from maternity leave, do not have access to employment insurance if their position is eliminated or they lose their job. This is gender-based injustice.

Could she comment on that?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues are certainly asking good questions. I thank my colleague from Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon for giving me the opportunity to address this issue.

We are right in the thick of the 12 days of action to end violence against women, and we know that economic issues have a huge impact on a woman's decision about whether to stay in a cycle of domestic violence. Employment insurance discrimination contributes to impoverishing women and keeping them stuck in a cycle of poverty that ultimately keeps them trapped in a cycle of violence.

I want to thank my colleague Louise Chabot. I can name her now that she is no longer a member of Parliament. She was a strong advocate on this issue. She said that she was ultimately calling for a reform of the Employment Insurance Act because it is not feminist enough. She went so far as to say that the act is anti-feminist because of its excessive discrimination against women. This leave thing—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Winnipeg Centre.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am really happy to have an opportunity to rise today to discuss Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, particularly around deep concerns that have been raised on the complete void of a gender-based analysis in the budget, including for projects of national interest.

The budget, for example, does not contain one single mention of murdered and missing indigenous women and girls, in spite of a study that was done by the status of women committee that directly linked increased violence against indigenous women and girls and resource extraction projects.

The whole budget relies on the lands, territories and resources of indigenous peoples, yet the budget has no mention of resources that will be provided for communities to put in place safety plans. The budget has no mention of how the government plans to protect indigenous women and girls from the violence that is often perpetrated in man camps, where we are seeing heightened rates of sexual trafficking, with Manitoba being the hub. There is no mention of that.

Even though the government has recognized this ongoing violence against indigenous women and girls as genocide, there is zero mention of it in this year's budget. With the government's own admission, in this year's budget, 41 measures will primarily benefit men, while only seven will primarily benefit women. This is shocking, especially with the planned budget cuts to the public service sector. Fifty-six per cent of those impacted will be women.

While I was glad to see in budget 2025 an investment of $660.5 million over five years, with $132.1 million ongoing, it came after great pressure from women's, feminist and gender-diverse organizations across the country fighting against the planned 15% cut. We know that gender equality cannot be an afterthought. It is part of a healthy, democratic Canada. However, this funding remains project-based, and these resources are not permanent.

The Liberals, in turn, expected to be thanked for only cutting women and gender equality by a smaller percentage than other departments, even though, historically, wages have been massively underfunded. The budget cut still amounts to $8 million each year. It comes at a time when countless experts and even the former Liberal attorney general have said that gender-based violence in Canada is an epidemic.

I will remind the government that the only reason we were able to protect some of that funding was the leadership of frontline organizations that fought to keep this funding in place. Even in spite of the fact that we managed to save the furniture, the Liberals have still cut these programs from their current level by roughly 50%, at a time when we need much more, not less, public support for upholding the rights of women and gender-diverse people. We cannot build a healthy economy if we exclude women, the LGBTQ+ community and gender-diverse people.

An area of deep concern is the lack of funding for sexual and reproductive health, as well as universal access to contraception. It is one of the clearest, most evidence-based investments that a government can make in people's health. It protects equality and economic security because it gives people control over their futures. It reduces health care costs and strengthens gender equality across the board.

It does not just improve sexual reproductive health and individual health, but it also drives population-level change. If people can plan when they want to have children and if they want to have children, they are more likely to stay in school, stay in the workforce and avoid cycles of poverty. Universal coverage of contraception is preventative, and it is good for the economy. It is like all good infrastructure: It saves us money in the long run.

We know this, but the only thing we are missing now is the political will to make the financial investments to make it real. We need to make sure that people can afford medication when they need it, to sustain their health and bodily autonomy. That is something that seems to be off the radar of not just the Liberals but the Conservatives too.

The word “pharmacare” was only mentioned once in the budget. Even though the Liberals signalled that it was signed into law, their commitment to universal pharmacare is failing to extend agreements to all provinces and territories that want it. We have to stop the practice of people having to pay out of pocket for contraception medications, which are vital for sexual and reproductive health.

The Liberals also broke their campaign promise to make permanent the sexual and reproductive health fund. The budget cut in health care for refugees is something that is problematic. It will escalate the cost of vital reproductive health care for women and gender-diverse people who have already been made vulnerable by displacement because of war and violence. The $400-million planned cut to health care at the end of the decade is deeply concerning. Such cuts will shrink the national leadership capacity, and we need that to coordinate prevention, equity and access across the provinces.

Let us not forget that our health care system is already tapped out. It is already tapped out. Burnout is real with health care providers, nurses, midwives and physicians. We need to make greater investments in training health care workers, to fill jobs and rebuild a robust health care system in Canada.

I have to say one of the most disappointing parts of the budget to me was the alarming signal that potentially threatens Canada's 10-year commitment to global health and rights, which includes $700 million annually for sexual and reproductive health. This has made Canada a global leader, and weakening that pledge on the global stage will not only harm millions worldwide but also erode Canada's credibility.

It is not surprising to me that our Prime Minister said he would not describe our policy as feminist foreign policy. It is shameful. We need to do more to protect gender equality in this country. We need it to be the centrepiece of a healthy economy, not an afterthought.

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

Mr. Speaker, I posed a question earlier to her colleague. The member was a part of the Conservative Party of Canada's attempt to precipitate an election by voting against the budget. However, if we take a look at the budget, contrary to a lot of the criticism that she levels, it provides all sorts of sustainable programs, such as schoolchildren getting food, the pharmacare program that she refers to, the dental care program, the enhancement of the summer youth program and many other programs.

Why would the member want to have an election as opposed to supporting these types of programs?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, the word “pharmacare” is mentioned only once in the budget. There are no other commitments.

I want to be clear: This is an austerity budget. Do members know who is benefiting from the budget? It is the corporations, from all the incentives that are being given to them. They just have to look at the last pages of the budget. Getting rid of the luxury tax on yachts and planes is one example. Do they know who is paying for it? It is women and gender equality in this country, sexual and reproductive health in this country and the 100 child care spots that the government promised and would now turn its back on in this year's budget. I do not support padding the pockets of the ultrarich.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have been pointing out for the last little while that it is the Brookfield government, and the Prime Minister has been using the government's plane to fly around the world. Interestingly, he has not secured many deals for Canada, but shortly after the Prime Minister leaves particular countries and places, Brookfield signs major deals with those particular places. I am just wondering whether the hon. member has any comments to that effect.