House of Commons Hansard #51 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was fish.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives attack the government's costly budget, highlighting a record deficit and increased national debt interest payments over health transfers. They demand axing the industrial carbon tax, which they link to rising food prices and housing costs. They also criticize the government's fiscal anchor and urge invoking the notwithstanding clause regarding child abuse material sentences.
The Liberals emphasize Canada's strong fiscal position and lowest net debt in the G7, framing their budget as generational investments for economic growth. They highlight efforts to enhance affordability, build affordable housing, create jobs for young people, and invest in defence and clean electricity. They also plan new legislation to combat child exploitation.
The Bloc slams the government's $78-billion deficit, accusing them of calling expenditures assets while funding oil companies. They criticize the budget's conservative priorities, claiming it neglects Quebec's needs for health and housing.
The Green Party urges the government to be flexible and make changes to the budget before the vote.

National Framework on Sports Betting Advertising Act First reading of Bill S-211. The bill creates a national framework to limit sports betting advertising. It aims to reduce promotion to youth and vulnerable groups, addressing concerns about the abundance of ads overshadowing sports and protecting Canadian families. 200 words.

Petitions

Budget Documents Distributed to Members Gabriel Ste-Marie raises a question of privilege regarding incomplete paper budget documents distributed to MPs, arguing it violates their right to full information and impedes their ability to perform parliamentary duties. 800 words.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance Members debate the government's budgetary policy, with the Leader of the Opposition criticizing the increased national debt, rising cost of living, and the industrial carbon tax. The Bloc Québécois calls the budget a "sham" for ignoring Quebec's needs and climate action, while Liberals defend it as a transformative investment in economic growth, social programs, and infrastructure. 14400 words, 2 hours.

Fisheries Act Second reading of Bill C-237. The bill seeks to amend the Fisheries Act to harmonize recreational groundfish fishing periods across Atlantic Canada and Quebec and to create a monitoring system for catches. The Conservative sponsor argues the bill would allow Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to fish seven days a week, like other Atlantic provinces, and would encourage better enforcement to eliminate illegal fishing. Liberal and Bloc members express concerns about the bill's potential impact on commercial fisheries, its shift from stock-based to species-based management, and the possibility of new costs or fees for recreational fishers. Bill C-237 8700 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Fuel regulations and carbon tax Cheryl Gallant argues that Liberal fuel regulations and the carbon tax increase costs for Canadians, especially those with lower incomes. Wade Grant defends the government's climate policies as investments in a clean economy, ensuring competitiveness and attracting global investment. Gallant accuses the Liberals of ignoring the financial burden on Canadians.
Fentanyl use near schools Dan Mazier asks if Maggie Chi believes fentanyl should be smoked beside schools and daycares. Chi says provinces decide on safe consumption sites, requiring community engagement. Mazier accuses the Liberals of endangering children, while Chi stresses compassion, collaboration, and community consultation in addressing the overdose crisis.
Nunavut hunters and trappers organizations Lori Idlout questions whether the government is adequately funding Nunavut's hunters and trappers organizations, given their legal obligations and the level of funding relative to resource extraction. Brendan Hanley cites increased funding in the renewed Nunavut agreement, although Idlout argues it is still not enough.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Public SafetyPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Mazier Conservative Riding Mountain, MB

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to present a petition to voice the concerns of the people of Riding Mountain.

The people of Swan River are experiencing an alarming increase in violent crime that has threatened the safety and well-being of families across our region. A recent report by the Manitoba west district RCMP found that over an 18-month period, just two offenders in Swan River were responsible for over 150 offences.

The petitioners continue to suffer the consequences of soft-on-crime Liberal policies such as Bill C-5, which repealed mandatory jail time for serious crimes, and Bill C-75, which forces judges to release repeat violent offenders right back onto the streets.

Petitioners in Swan Valley want to see an end to the Liberals' reckless catch-and-release policies so that criminals stay behind bars. This is why the people of Swan River are demanding jail, not bail for repeat violent offenders. I support the good people of Swan River.

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

Madam Speaker, I am rising to table three petitions.

The first is from people who are concerned about the situation at Canada Post and the upcoming service cuts. They also believe that there is a potential conflict of interest involving the CEO of Canada Post, who sits on the board of Purolator. These people are calling for the Auditor General to undertake an analysis of Canada Post and provide the public with a report detailing categories of expenditures to confirm whether the losses reported as being “operational” are truly so. Investments are not currently considered capital investments. The petitioners are therefore calling for the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of Canada to investigate possible corporate malfeasance by analyzing the conflicts of interest, dubious capital purchases and decision-making process. Finally, the petitioners are calling for workers to be given a voice regarding costly new methods and unnecessary spending.

International Criminal CourtPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

The second petition concerns the fact that the President of the United States signed an executive order imposing a broad sanctions regime on the International Criminal Court, its officials, its staff and their families. This order attacks an institution that is the last international bastion for ending impunity for the gravest of crimes, such as mass atrocities, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to publicly condemn the order made by the United States on February 6, 2025, by promptly issuing a statement of support for the court and its staff, and to fully co-operate with the International Criminal Court, including by executing all arrest warrants issued by the court, such as those for Omar al-Bashir, Benjamin Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.

Foreign AffairsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

NDP

Alexandre Boulerice NDP Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC

The last petition concerns the fact that people who hold a Palestinian Authority ID or passport are being refused entry at the Ben Gurion International Airport in Israel, even though they have a valid Canadian passport.

Unlike Canada, the United States has successfully secured equal treatment for its citizens with Palestinian Authority ID, but we have not. These people are calling on the Government of Canada to ensure that all Canadian citizens, regardless of whether they hold a Palestinian Authority ID or passport, are granted equal treatment by Israel, including the ability to enter the country via the Ben Gurion Airport.

Canada PostPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today on behalf of the Resort Village of Tobin Lake, in my riding, where 401 individuals have expressed the concern that they do not have a unique postal code. They get their mail in other places. They did not get to vote for me, because they do not have a postal code where they live. This has resulted in frequent mail and parcel delivery issues, confusion by emergency response services, complications with alarm monitoring of home security systems, and difficulties in business operations and address verifications.

They have a need for more accurate and efficient address verification, so they are calling on the Government of Canada and the Canada Post Corporation to assign a dedicated and unique postal code to the Resort Village of Tobin Lake, knowing that this is an issue right across our country.

Public SafetyPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Fred Davies Conservative Niagara South, ON

Madam Speaker, I have the sad and unfortunate duty today to present a petition on behalf of constituents of Niagara South and throughout the region of Niagara with respect to the brutal rape and beating of a three-year-old toddler in my riding. On August 31, 2025, this little girl was violently assaulted by a 25-year-old man who had been let out early from a sentence of a previous sexual assault and rape of a 12-year-old boy.

More than 10,400 people in the first tranche of this petition have asked me to present it on their behalf. The undersigned citizens and residents of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to amend the Criminal Code to make bail and early releases more restrictive for repeat violent offenders of sexual offences and sexual offences against children, to protect children and to end the revolving door of justice for crimes targeting the most vulnerable Canadians.

On their behalf, I table this petition.

Charitable OrganizationsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings

November 5th, 2025 / 3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Chak Au Conservative Richmond Centre—Marpole, BC

Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of Canadians who are deeply concerned about recommendations 429 and 430 of the finance committee's pre-budget report. The petitioners call upon the government to reject these recommendations and to affirm the charitable status of faith-based organizations.

Religious charities play a vital role in meeting needs and supporting our most vulnerable. They operate soup kitchens, organize community outreach, provide Christmas hampers and support families in need during the holiday season.

I have had the privilege of being part of these initiatives and have seen first-hand not only the heart these faith communities bring to their work, but also the significant difference they make in offering disaster relief, feeding seniors, equipping children with school supplies and helping single mothers.

At a time when Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis, undermining the ability of these organizations to serve would be irresponsible. The petitioners therefore urge the government to maintain the charitable status of faith-based organizations so they can continue their invaluable service to Canadians.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, if the government's responses to Questions Nos. 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347 and 348 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled in an electronic format immediately.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Questions Passed as Orders for ReturnRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Motions for PapersRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed

Budget Documents Distributed to MembersPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Gabriel Ste-Marie Bloc Joliette—Manawan, QC

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the proceedings of yesterday's budget lock-up and the budget documents that were distributed to members of Parliament.

It turns out that members of Parliament who consulted the budget in paper format only, as distributed by the government during the lock-up and during the government's economic statement at the end of the day, did not receive all the information in the government's new budget policy. In fact, we have found that the PDF version, in other words, the electronic version, is 559 pages long, while the paper version is more than a hundred pages shorter at 448 pages.

It is also worth raising the issue of fairness in accessing the budget information, since some members who participated in the lock-up were informed by the government that the PDF document was the official and complete version of the budget, while others received this information only after the lock-up.

Worse still, members who received only the paper copy, just before attending the House sitting on the economic statement, were never informed that the paper copy did not contain the full and complete version of the budget. That raises serious concerns, especially since this was the version that most members received.

This situation not only shows how blatantly unprepared the government was, but, in our opinion, it also violates the right of all members to full and fair information and could obstruct members in the performance of their parliamentary duties.

It should be noted that not all members are authorized to take part in budget lock-ups and that only a limited number of people from each political party are allowed to attend.

In our opinion, if the paper copy was missing pages or incomplete information on the government's budgetary policy was distributed, this could compromise the ability of members who received the incomplete version to understand and analyze all of the budget measures and to prepare for debates.

I would like to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that lock-ups give the other parties' critics and economic experts a chance to review all of the government's budget measures. However, failing to provide information in a fair manner, so that all members can have access to the full and complete facts, infringes on members' right to have all the information concerning government affairs. This is essential, particularly when the elected government is a minority government.

Members of the opposition parties must have access to all the information in order to do their job and hold the government accountable on behalf of their constituents.

It is also important to note that not having all the information could, in certain circumstances, mislead members.

On this issue, Bosc and Gagnon point out, in the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, that parliamentary privilege protects members from any interference with their ability to perform their duties. On page 116, they state that misleading a member or members can be considered a form of obstruction that could hinder the business of the House.

Parliament's right to obtain the fullest information possible on matters of public interest is indisputable. The issue here concerns the importance of the right of members of Parliament to have access to accurate and complete documents in order to exercise their responsibility to hold the government to account.

A ruling by Speaker Regan on March 27, 2018, published in the Debates of the House of Commons at pages 18134 and 18135, appears to recognize that principle. In that ruling, the Speaker referred to a ruling by his predecessor, at page 13868 of the Debates, and emphasized that “access to accurate and timely information is an essential cornerstone of our parliamentary system”. The Speaker went on to say:

There is not only great truth but also great power in these few words, for they represent a right that is integral to the health of our democracy. They also explain, to some extent, why members take seriously the need to defend their right to access timely and accurate information in order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, particularly their role of holding the government to account.

I therefore ask the Chair to determine whether, in the case before us, there is a prima facie case to find that members who were not informed that the paper documents they received were incomplete have been impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether there is a prima facie breach of their parliamentary privilege.

If so, I can move the appropriate motion to have the matter studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Budget Documents Distributed to MembersPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

3:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I thank the hon. member for calling attention to this matter. The Chair will take it under advisement and will come back to the House as soon as possible.

The House resumed from November 4 consideration of the motion that this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Battle River—Crowfoot Alberta

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition

Madam Speaker, there are times in the life of a Parliament when Canadians are not looking for showy speeches, sound bites for TikTok or corporate buzzwords. Sometimes people look to the House of Commons and wonder whether the people entrusted with power are listening to them, are able to understand them, and are making efforts to solve the real problems in their lives.

Canadians are exhausted. They are tired not because they do not want to work, but because they bear too heavy a load on their shoulders for a government that does not take enough responsibility. The government we have now is too much of a burden. It weighs heavily on the shoulders of the ordinary—no, the extraordinary Canadians who work every day to pay our country's bills. These are people whose names never appear in the credits. They never get famous, but they are the ones building our country, and it is to them that we owe our presence here in the House of Commons. For too long, the government has taken them for granted, taking their money to spend on its own obsessions without delivering any benefits for them.

There are moments in a nation's life when people look to our leaders, not for applause lines, corporate buzzwords or social media clips, but for honesty, humility and seriousness. They look to this chamber and ask whether those entrusted with power truly understand the weight of the burdens on the shoulders of the people.

Now is one of those times, because Canadians are tired. They are exhausted, not because they do not want to work but because they bear the burden of an extremely expensive government that takes too much and returns too little, that focuses on its own obsessions rather than on the needs of the people who pay the bills.

Those Canadians who pay the bills, the ordinary Canadians, no, the extraordinary Canadians who build the homes, swing the hammers, frame our buildings, drive our trucks, invest in our businesses and mortgage their homes to start new enterprises are the silent voices whose murmurs of pain and suffering have grown louder and louder without any heed from government.

They needed hope yesterday. They needed relief. They needed evidence that someone in the government had heard them, believed them and respected their sacrifices and was finally prepared to act in their interests instead of the government's interests. Instead, they were met with the most expensive failure in modern Canadian history. The Prime Minister, the figure head the Liberals had paraded in front of Canadians as a new guarantor of discipline, competence and stability, the man we were told would clean up the Liberal mess, has brought a bigger shovel and dug a far deeper hole.

For nearly a year, the Liberals and their supporters told us that the Prime Minister was different from the man he had advised for the proceeding five years, that he was smarter and more responsible and that he would be the adult in the room. However, even before the budget was presented, the promises were all broken.

It was revealed that the mythology was false, because this budget confirms the truth: In the government, there is no discipline, restraint or plan, only politics, posturing and pain for the people who do the work, pay the taxes and hold the country together.

The numbers speak for themselves. The Prime Minister is going to add another $80 billion to our national debt, which is double the deficit Justin Trudeau left behind. It is the largest deficit in the country's history, outside of the pandemic. That is $16 billion more than the deficit the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign. That is about $5,000 for every Canadian family. These families will be paying the bill for generations to come, and that is just the debt he is adding in a single year.

The budget calls for $312 billion to be added to the debt over five years. That is a record and by far the largest amount in the country's history. It represents $20,000 in additional debt for every Canadian family.

The Prime Minister is proving to be the most expensive in Canadian history, with a $78.3-billion deficit. His deficit is twice the size of the one Trudeau left behind. It is also $16 billion bigger than he promised, the biggest by far outside the COVID period. Over the five years that follow this budget, the Prime Minister expects to add $314 billion of new debt. That is one-third of a trillion dollars, which is $20,000 for every family in Canada.

Let us think about that. We were told that the adults were finally here, but instead the bill payers of this country are being told to brace for yet another reckless round of spending: $10 million of new debt added every single hour. Canadians are trimming their groceries, delaying having children, moving in with their parents and taking on second jobs, while the government indebts them $10 million an hour. That is not for homes, for prosperity or for any benefit of the people, but for the survival of the government itself.

Where does this indulgence take us? The national debt is now $1.35 trillion. To put that into perspective, that is by far the highest in Canadian history. A newborn child in this country is born with $30,000 of debt to their name, and for a family of four, it is $120,000 of debt. That is a small mortgage for most people, and that is just the debt they owe through the federal government.

Let me be clear: Every Canadian family owes $120,000 as a result of the national debt, at the federal level alone.

Our young people are told they have to put their dreams on hold to pay this crushing burden. What do they get for it? Do they get more doctors, more nurses, more homes or more paycheques? No, they get none of the above.

The money goes to interest on the debt, on which the government is now spending $55.6 billion. That is more than we transfer for health care to the provinces and more than the government collects in GST. When someone pays GST on their next purchase, they should know that every penny is going to paying bankers and bondholders rather than to paying nurses and doctors. That is the human cost.

Every year, Canadian families spend $3,300 on interest for the federal debt alone. That money will not fund a single MRI machine. It will be waste layered upon waste. While Canadians tighten their belt, eat lower-quality food and less of it, and hold off on their dreams, the Liberals offer one thing in return: decline disguised as virtue.

The Liberals promised that the debt-to-GDP ratio would fall; it rises. The Prime Minister promised that confidence would return and that investment would return, but then his own budget graph shows that investment is actually collapsing in real time. Every single quarter that he has been in office in this calendar year, there will have been a serious decline in investment: so much for spending less and investing more.

The Liberals promised stability; they delivered stagnation. They promised the next generation a fair shot; they have delivered them a sentence of slow growth and high costs. That might sound like economist-speak, but there is a real human cost of that.

As Canadians walk into grocery stores, they see that since March, when the Prime Minister was elected on the promise that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store, strawberries are up 25%, beef sirloin is up 25%, stewing beef is up 20%, coffee is up 20%, chicken drumsticks are up 17%, salad dressing is up 17%, pork ribs are up 15%, chicken thighs are up 14%, and even basic mushrooms are up 13%.

Canadians are not eating gourmet; in fact, many of them are not eating at all some days. A recent survey and study done by a food bank association demonstrated that over 10% of Canadians are now skipping meals for an entire day because they cannot afford to eat. Food bank usage tells the story: It has doubled since 2019, when the Prime Minister became the economic adviser to his predecessor.

One in five Canadians who goes to a food bank has a job, but their paycheque does not buy them food. In addition, while the Liberals keep telling us they are going to bring in a school food program, since they made that promise, the number of children relying on food banks has doubled, to 700,000 a month.

Hanging over every farm, every factory, every trucker who moves goods, and every person who has anything in a modern civilized life is the massive and growing industrial carbon tax. Yes, it is still there. It is true the government has paused the visible, consumer carbon tax, thanks to Conservative pressure, but it has maintained, and in this budget has decided to increase, the industrial carbon tax, which punishes people who produce food and those who build homes.

The food professor warned that the industrial carbon tax is not gone; the worst part is still there. Only the consumer portion was reduced to zero. Processors and growers shoulder heavy costs. He said that the industrial carbon tax remains and that we should pay attention, because it continues to erode competitiveness in the agri-food sector. Most damning of all is that he says, “The U.S. produces food more efficiently and more cheaply than we do. The cost gap is growing, not shrinking.”

When experts are practically begging the government to stop harming food production with high taxes on every aspect of the food chain, this is a matter of ideology, not of human need.

Let us be very clear what this tax actually is; it is a levy on the steel in the tractor that rolls across our fields. Every grain dryer that preserves and dries the harvest, every greenhouse heater that helps vegetables grow in the winter, every truck that ships food from farm to table, every bag of fertilizer, every pallet of lumber, every sack of cement, every pound of steel, every piece of rebar, every roofing truss and every load of drywall becomes more expensive when we apply a carbon tax on the things Canadians make.

It might be a well-concealed tax, but it is an extremely expensive tax, one the Prime Minister plans to more than double over the next several years and keep increasing even after that. It is no wonder that the government is actually increasing food prices in Canada at a faster rate than they are increasing in the United States.

It is not just food; it is also housing. The industrial carbon tax applies on everything for housing. To give a little bit of chump change back to a very small number of people who happen to meet the exact and highly limited definition, the government has provided an unworkable GST rebate, going only to first time buyers who buy new homes.

Here is the problem with that: The Venn diagram intersection of new buyer and new home is next to nothing. New buyers typically buy resale homes, and those never had taxes on them in the first place. Typically, new homes are bought by second-, third-, fourth- and fifth-time homebuyers, because, of course, new homes are more expensive, and buyers already have to have been in the market.

The Prime Minister has successfully engineered a rebate that 95% of Canadians are ineligible to receive. It is basically worthless to almost all people in the country. Meanwhile, he made a promise he would help the municipalities cut their development taxes in half. That promise goes unkept, so today in the province of Ontario, 30% of the cost of a new home is taxes and more taxes, and the Prime Minister has not removed or eliminated those taxes despite the promise he made during the election.

Scott Andison, chief executive officer of the Ontario Home Builders' Association says, "The government's inaction will put 40,000 jobs in Ontario at risk. From architects and engineers to trades and sub trades across the residential construction sector, the estimated direct and indirect economic impact from these job losses on Ontario's economy is $5.3 billion.”

Meanwhile, our tradespeople are losing their jobs because homes are not getting built. Homebuilding is collapsing after the Prime Minister promised he would double it. Yesterday's budget makes the problem worse by failing to remove the taxes that were already there, while piling on the new and more expensive industrial carbon tax.

What is most galling of all is the wordplay the Liberals use to justify it all. They say, “We're not spending; we're investing”. This sounds like a new buzzword, but it is actually very old. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau claimed that he was going to invest when he promised a small deficit of $10 billion that would be gone in three years. Do members remember that? He said that the budget would balance itself.

I do not say that derisively, because he actually had a well-thought-out chain of steps that he believed would happen. He said that if we borrow money and spend it in the economy, it will cause economic growth and investment that will then go back into tax revenues, and the budget will balance itself. He did not express it in those sorts of terms, but that is what he meant, and that is exactly what the Prime Minister today is promising; he is claiming that deficits can be converted into investment. Well, there are three reasons that never happens.

By the way, members do not have to take my word for it; the investment numbers themselves are clear. Since the government started new debt, investment in Canada has collapsed. We have had the worst investment per capita of any country in the G7 and its worst drop in Canadian history as the Liberals have doubled deficits.

Therefore there is a negative correlation between deficits and investments. Why is that? First, everything comes from something; nothing comes from nothing. Governments get deficit financing only two ways: They print it, or they borrow it.

If they print it, they increase the money supply faster than the things money buys, and we get inflation, which we have seen; or they borrow it out of the marketplace, but somebody has to lend it, meaning that the money that is lent to the government cannot be put to other more productive uses. Economists call it the crowding out effect; this is when government borrows money out of the economy, depriving the private sector of the investment it needs for more productive activities.

Therefore when government borrows out of the economy in order to spend back into the economy, there is no net increase in economic activity; it is simply redirected to another purpose, away from productive private sector investment towards unproductive government spending. Money is taken away from factories, pipelines, warehouses, tech research and other income-generating assets to give it to bureaucracy, which ultimately devours the money and never produces a return.

The most incredible example of this was, of course, in Israel, which was running massive deficits in the 1990s and paying out 6% interest on its government bonds. This starved the Israeli economy of investment. When the government finally stopped spending and balanced its budget, investment in the tech sector exploded, because bondholders were forced to actually invest in productive R and D rather than passively hand their money over for a government-guaranteed return.

As a result of paying down debt, Israel unlocked more investment, and there was a venture capital boom that meant that right now, Israel has more companies trading on the NASDAQ exchange than does all of Europe, a continent with 75 times more people than Israel.

If we want to unlock investment, one of the things we need to stop doing is borrowing that investment out of the economy. Instead, we need to leave it in the hands of productive private sector investment that will grow and expand our economy.

The second reason why deficits are not investments is that today's deficits are perceived as tomorrow's taxes, and every business and citizen knows that. When people see large deficits in the news, they anticipate future tax increases and begin to save accordingly. Therefore, while the government is injecting funds into the economy, consumers, investors and businesses are reducing their own spending and investment.

The reason the government's deficits do not produce more investment and economic activity as well is that people are not stupid. They know today's deficits are tomorrow's taxes, so businesses and individuals tend to hoard their money in anticipation of future tax increases when they see there are large-scale deficits in the present. This has been borne out by the research of the IMF, which found that high-debt countries, such as Canada, with high deficits tend to have households holding back on investments of their own, and the same goes for businesses.

The only reason money-making projects do not happen in Canada is not because we are not spending and borrowing enough money, but because the government is standing in the way of those very same projects. What it needs to do is get out of the way.

The government needs to get out of the way to let mines be dug in two years' or three years' approval time, get out of the way to approve pipelines that can go to the coast so we no longer have to give all of our oil to Americans at discounts and get out of the way to grant rapid permits for LNG plants, the massive plants that are $30 billion or $40 billion, totally funded by the private sector, and massively profitable, because the price for a million metric British thermal units in Canada is three dollars, while in Asia it is over $10.

We can make enormous amounts of money if the government gets out of the way and lets these things happen, but of course that would be no fun for the government. Nobody wants written on their tombstone, “Here lies politician Smith. He got out of the way.” They all want to say that he built this thing and he built that thing, with other people's money, so it serves the ego of the politician to take the money out of the economy and put it back somewhere else, even though it costs enormous amounts, or to block this economic activity only to subsidize that same economic activity.

It is like what the great President Ronald Reagan said, which is that, if Liberals see something move, they tax it. If it keeps moving, they regulate it. If it stops moving, they subsidize it. Why not just do none of the above? Why not just get out of the way to let free people, entrepreneurs and workers, unlock their incredible natural potential to build, make, move, fix, develop and invent things for all of us? That would be a much more sensible way to get investment.

The Liberals have offered us nothing but managed declined, but we want national renewal. They have offered excuses, while we, as Conservatives, offer results. They offer debt and drift; we offer discipline and direction. They offer scarcity; we offer possibility. They offer a failed past; we offer a bright future. They trust only in themselves to run the lives of other people; we trust in the Canadian people to make their own decisions for themselves.

We, as Conservatives, want to get the government out of the way. We want to lighten the load on our entrepreneurs and our workers in order to unleash the strength and ingenuity of Canadians. We want to allow them to be rewarded for their ambition.

That is the country we want, and we have a very clear plan to do it. We want to lower the taxes on work, investment, homebuilding and energy. Let us cut income taxes for real, not $83 a year, but a real income tax cut that would actually boost take-home pay and reward hard work. Let us get rid of taxes on energy, such as the industrial carbon tax. Let us get rid of all taxes on homebuilding, which would be enough to reduce homebuilding costs in some provinces by as much as $200,000. Let us get rid of taxes on investment. If we want more investment, stop taxing investment. No capital gains tax for anybody who reinvests in Canada would be a way to get lots of investment going.

We need to unlock and reward the entrepreneurship of this country, but right now our entrepreneurs are like eagles locked in a birdcage. They cannot go anywhere because they are hemmed in and blocked from flying by high government taxes and heavy regulatory burden. We want to liberate Canadians to spread their economic wings and fly.

We want this to be the most rewarding place for people to work, start a business, build a home, dig a mine and set up a factory to make stuff again. That is the country we envision. We want sound money so that when hard-working waitresses and assembly line workers get their paycheque and put it in their bank account, it does not lose its value with each passing day. That means we have to stop the violence the government is doing to our money, stop the money printing and get the Bank of Canada back to its job of core low inflation and ultimately address the real foundational problem, which is that the government is spending money it does not have on things we do not need. Let us control the government's spending so that Canadian people can have strong, sound money again.

The Liberals wants a country where the government is rich and the people are poor. We want the people to live with abundance and opportunity, and that, by the way, means we need to unlock energy. There has been no history in the world of defeating poverty that has not involved low-cost and abundant energy. We, on the Conservative side, want to unlock the trillions of dollars of oil and gas, uranium and hydroelectricity in our water, our rocks, our molecules and our atoms to be used for our benefit here in a sovereign and strong Canada. That is our vision.

This is a bright and optimistic vision, and it is one that I think is going to inspire our young people, who are in so desperate need of hope. I want to say to our youth today that we, as Conservatives, see them. We see the heavy bags under their eyes as they work that third shift in a single day or are dropping off Uber Eats because they need it to pay the rent. We hear the stress and the strain in their voices as they wonder how they are going to pay the rent. We also hear the tone of hopelessness as they wonder whether they will ever be able to start a family. We hear them. We see them. We are with them. We are here to offer them homes, jobs and hope.

Our young people will once again be rewarded for their ambition, their hard work, their ingenious activity and their contribution to our country. Their hard work will once again be liberated to their own benefit and to the benefit of all Canadians. We are not here to tell our youth, who have done nothing but sacrifice since their teenage years, that they need to sacrifice more at the alter of a costly, confiscatory and expensive Liberal government. The hard work of our young people should go to their benefit. This should be a land of promise, freedom and opportunity for our youth.

We reiterate that what this country needs is an affordable budget for an affordable life for all of our people, in a country that rewards hard work and unlocks entrepreneurs, a nation not of bureaucrats and busybodies, of rulers and rule-makers, of gatekeepers and grandees, but instead, a nation of adventurers and artists, of entrepreneurs and explorers, of workers and warriors, of pioneers and patriots, all united to restore the promise of Canada, which is that anyone from anywhere can do anything and that hard work gets people a great life on a safe street in a beautiful house under our proud flag.

Canada first. Canada forever.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, I remember when the leader of the official opposition sat on the government benches and the Conservatives took a multi-billion dollar surplus from Ralph Goodale and turned it into a multi-billion dollar deficit, and that fed through.

In real dollars, if we look at the value of the dollar today compared to what it was in the 2009-10 budget, his budget back then had more of a deficit than this budget, yet they are building their case on an issue that is somewhat surprising because he sat in a government that, in real dollars, had more of a deficit than what is proposed in this budget.

Does the member not see any inconsistency in that?

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, yes, I do see a lot of inconsistency in the member's question. His leader was elected promising to spend less, and he is spending 100% more in deficits than his predecessor. He promised that he would deliver the fastest-growing economy in the G7, and he has delivered the fastest-shrinking economy. He promised more investment, but the government's own documents in the budget demonstrate that investment is collapsing since he took office as Prime Minister. He promised he would double homebuilding, and homebuilding is expected now, by his own government agency, to drop by 13%.

The Prime Minister has broken every single promise he made, and he is only seven months into his term. Despite the assumption that because he dresses in a more corporate image, he would be better with money, he is more expensive than Justin Trudeau by every objective measure. The debt and the spending is more expensive today.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Bloc

Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the leader of the official opposition on his speech. I hope he has impressed his troops. We want to keep it a minority government.

The budget includes plenty of investments in fossil fuels. It is utterly silent on the energy transition. It includes massive investments in defence. It is a Conservative budget, as my colleague from Mirabel said, so much so that some Conservatives have decided to cross the floor.

I want to give the leader of the official opposition an opportunity to tell us that he is not jealous of what was tabled. I want to give him a bit of time to answer that question.

Financial Statement of Minister of FinanceThe BudgetGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I am not jealous at all. In fact, I am a little depressed to see the size of the Liberal deficit.

When the Conservatives were in power, yes, there were some short-term deficits, but we managed to balance the budget a few years later, after the financial crisis in the United States. We left Canada in the best fiscal position of any country in the G7. That is the approach we will take next time, an approach that is all about balancing budgets, eliminating waste and cutting taxes for hard-working folks. I hope the Bloc Québécois will support this excellent idea.