Debates of Nov. 6th, 2025

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. member for Mississauga—Lakeshore has the floor.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question is about debt and deficits. I understand them fully. I delivered six budgets in the past. I recognized, after the 2008 financial crisis, that we were at the lowest we could be across Canada, not just in Ontario. We invested in infrastructure to stimulate economic growth and we tackled the situation by growing and stimulating the economy.

Debt is a function of wealth. We could borrow to provide for investment and greater revenue in power, and that is what we did. It enabled us to have greater revenues and be able to come to balance.

This budget speaks about Canada and the opportunities afforded to Canadians for future benefit. The member opposite may know that his grandmother had a $20,000 debt on a home worth only $80,000. Today, an average home of about $800,000 carries an approximate debt of $100,000 to $200,000.

It is the net benefit to Canadians that matters, and we are working for the benefit of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Mississauga—Lakeshore is being very inconsistent. Today he is saying that debt helps create wealth. When he was Ontario's finance minister, however, he said he was determined to balance the budgets to get the government's house in order. Today he is defending a budget that creates a deficit of $78 billion, $45 billion of which was artificially reclassified as investments to lower the deficit on paper.

Today the Liberal Party is saying that the world has changed. I would like my colleague to explain what has changed: his principles regarding fiscal discipline or the Liberal definition of transparency.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we recognize it very well. My colleague, the former minister of finance for Quebec, and I delivered around 11 budgets between us. One thing we did that is similar to what is in this budget was ensure that we distinguished between borrowing for operating and borrowing to make investments and increase our prosperity. We delved very precisely into infrastructure spending programs, which subsequently enabled us to have a much greater level of prosperity and revenues. Even to this day, former governments are still doing ribbon cuttings for the things we approved, because our budgets went beyond election cycles and looked forward to the future of families and the future of Canada.

That is how we achieved balance.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is really encouraging that we have the amazing talents of those who sit around the Liberal caucus, including the former finance minister for the Province of Ontario and the former finance minister for the Province of Quebec, who has just spoken. Our Prime Minister was the governor of the Bank of Canada and the governor of the Bank of England. He is an economist. Understanding the economy is so critically important.

I am wondering if my colleague could provide his insights into why it is so important that we build Canada strong at this time.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is important to recognize that there are two ways to stimulate economic growth in this country. One way is monetary policy, which the opposition has determined should not even exist.

We need to have an independent and arm's-length overview of monetary policy to control inflation, and it has happened. Canadians had to endure some suffering, but the world suffers still to this day. The Bank of Canada took the necessary steps to control inflation, which has been a global phenomenon.

Here in the House, we have the opportunity to control what we can focus on, and that is fiscal policy. We are investing to stimulate growth. That is what this budget is all about.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my neighbour the MP for the soup and salad bowl of Canada.

Canadians elected the Prime Minister because they believed that, maybe, his experience meant steadiness in uncertain times. They believed that perhaps, finally, someone would treat the nation's finances with care.

This budget is a breach of that trust. It is a promise written with red ink in stone, a pledge of debt that my generation and my children's generation will be forced to honour long after the current Liberal government is gone. It doubles the deficit of the Trudeau years. It exceeds the red ink spilled during the global financial crisis and leaves Canadians with nothing resembling a plan for balanced growth. It is spending without restraint, strategy or an honest accounting of how the debt will ever be serviced.

Both capital and operational spending, every dollar of it, must be paid for in one way or another. The budget abandons the fiscal anchor that guided us for decades, the debt-to-GDP ratio that still governs our allies and disciplines responsible nations, and then it dares to call itself generous, offering a tax break with one hand while burdening every Canadian with approximately $2,000 more in debt with the other.

Over the next five years, our national debt will rise by $324 billion. That is like handing every Canadian family a $20,000 credit card bill and saying, “Good luck. You will pay for it.” In other words, that is $10 million of debt per hour, with every tick of the clock another $10 million on the nation's credit card. Interest payments alone will climb from $55 billion to $76 billion, which is more than all the GST collected in this country.

As a finance professional, I am troubled by another deception. The government is playing with the very definitions of capital and operating budgets by shifting tax breaks and subsidies into the capital column to give the illusion of fiscal prudence. Right on page 283 of the budget, conveniently buried in the annexes, right at the back and only because the government was forced to disclose it, corporate income tax credits are treated as capital investments. It is confirmed that the government hands Canadian tax dollars to big corporations and calls it capital investment.

Does the U.K. or Singapore do this? Do Canada's provinces do it? No, but the Liberal government does, and then it tells Canadians that it is balancing the operating budget in three years and being fiscally prudent when it is simply moving big subsidies and tax breaks for private companies as capital investments. We also know that even security for FIFA is going to be a capital investment. It is not prudence; it is the manipulation of Canada's budget.

It is always risky for an entity to change its accounting metrics, let alone when reporting is delayed, deficits are ballooning and economic conditions are deteriorating. This change, which is solely for a politically expedient communication strategy, is damning. It is an unnecessary risk to Canada's credit rating and fiscal integrity in very uncertain times.

Canadians believed there was a steady hand on the wheel. This budget has no hand, no wheel and no map. It is impossibly vague. It gestures toward major projects without naming them and military spending without strategy. It is seven months after the election, and we still have no idea where the government is leading us. We only know that it plans to spend $141 billion more, choosing the winners and losers instead of fixing fundamentals.

The budget should have unleashed domestic capital to keep investment here and not drive it away.

It should have addressed the weight of development charges and broken the bottlenecks in housing construction. Instead, the Building Industry and Land Development Association describes it as follows:

...Budget 2025’s treatment of Development Charges...is particularly troubling. Not only has the federal government’s language changed markedly, backing away from the commitment...[that] is now only a framework for federal, territorial, and provincial agreements, not an actionable plan to reduce municipal housing fees with any sense of urgency.

The Liberal government should have treated all Canadians fairly and extended the GST/HST exemption for all homebuyers. It should have kept its election promise to reduce municipal development charges by 50%.

It should have approved LNG pipelines to the east coast, freeing our allies from their dependence on Russian gas while building a bridge to renewable energy. It should have cleared the path for the mining of critical minerals in Ontario's ring of fire and the infrastructure to get them to market. It should have cut the red tape that strangles our entrepreneurs and lowered taxes so they can invest, expand and hire.

Instead, we have an $80 billion deficit, $16 billion higher than even the Prime Minister's own campaign pledge, with no road back to balance.

Behind every number is a human story. Food inflation is hitting hard. Right now, we have approximately 700,000 visits by children to food banks in a single month. That is a generation of children growing up watching their parents struggle because they cannot afford groceries because the government keeps spending beyond its means.

Private sector investment is collapsing. Since the Prime Minister took office, quarter after quarter, businesses have lost faith that the government understands how wealth is created. As confidence leaves, capital leaves with it.

One in three young Canadians are now thinking of leaving this country, not because they lack patriotism but because they no longer believe they can afford to stay. That is the tragedy of this budget.

To the government opposite I say this. It should come to its senses and return to the discipline that once made Canada a model of stability and sound management. It cannot spend its way to affordability. A government that cannot live within its means will never make life affordable for those who must live within theirs. Canadians did not elect it to max out the country's credit card.

I believe in a Canada where fiscal responsibility is not a slogan but a standard, where government acts with prudence and with purpose, and where every dollar is spent with the humility that it belongs first to the people who earned it. I believe in a Canada where our children inherit opportunity, not debt, and can look to the future and see prosperity, not hopelessness in mountains of debt. That is the Canada we must fight to restore today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think people do not understand the significance of this budget. We have set aside a large envelope to defend Canada in this budget. We are a G7 country, and we need to protect Canada because the world is changing right now.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about our investments in defending Canada.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there are some good elements in the budget. Unfortunately, when it comes to defence we see a new bureaucracy being created. We see billions of dollars thrown at this program, but there is actually no strategy. There are no details in the budget as to where the money is going to go. That is a problem because what we see is bigger programs and more spending, but nothing is getting cut. That is why we see close to $80 billion in deficit. The government cannot possibly be proud of that record.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a question I like to ask the Conservatives. Oddly enough, I never get an answer from them, and that always surprises me. I will try my luck with a new colleague. Maybe I stand a better chance of getting an answer from her this time.

I asked my colleague from Richmond—Arthabaska the same question earlier. It was related to government waste and the deficits that the Liberals like to describe as generational. This budget extends tax credits for oil and gas companies until 2040. We already knew that the tax credits for oil and gas companies until 2035 would cost roughly $83 billion. This extension will raise that total to over $100 billion. The answer I got was it is important that we develop our natural resources. That is not what I am talking about.

I am wondering, do the Conservatives support giving $100 billion in tax credits to an industry that clearly does not need tax credits?

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we do believe in supporting the oil and gas sector and building pipelines because that is to Canada's competitive advantage. A country either has natural resources or does not. We have been blessed with the fact that we do. Unleashing our oil and gas sector will create jobs. It will create prosperity. That is income for families who desperately need it.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I asked one of the members earlier about service cuts to places like my riding, which is very, very far away from Ottawa and where we really rely on our services. He answered by saying that the CRA would improve efficiencies by pre-filling applications and tax filings for Canadians.

Given the extremely low accuracy of the CRA in answering questions, as I believe the CRA is answering questions accurately only about 17% of the time right now, I wonder if my colleague would comment on the service cuts to her riding and to Canadians.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have a problem with the CRA, a problem that has been growing over the last years and has not been addressed, unfortunately, by the government.

When we have the Canada Revenue Agency, the agency that collects the revenue for our country, not being able to perform, it is very serious, particularly when we talk about the fiscal position of our country. The agency is not able to provide answers accurately. Even its artificial intelligence chatbot is not able to provide correct answers. We saw most recently that there was fraud with an automatic filing where the CRA actually gave close to $5 million in credit to a company that only generates $250,000 in revenue. It does not make sense. That is a big risk.

We have to make sure we address the structural problems of the agency, so that it can finally be efficient.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, whatever it says on the front cover, this budget does not build a stronger Canada. It weakens it, piling up record debt, driving up costs and leaving working Canadians to carry the weight of the Prime Minister's spending and years of Liberal failures.

Canadians were told to expect something “generational”. They were promised a serious plan to restore discipline after a decade of Liberal overspending and inflationary deficits. Instead, they got a banker’s budget, one that borrows more, taxes more and delivers less than ever before.

This plan is obsessed with the appearance of stability, but not the reality of affordability. Liberal ministers are celebrating empty promises and vague fiscal targets that exist only on paper. Meanwhile, Canadians are left holding a different kind of paper: real grocery receipts with fewer items and higher prices, and real bank statements that show savings shrinking month after month. I often say we cannot put a AAA credit rating on a hot dog, and we cannot buy dinner with a deficit projection either.

Behind all the rhetoric, the numbers tell the truth. This is the largest regular deficit in Canadian history, at $78 billion, far above the $62 billion the Prime Minister promised just months ago. The debt-to-GDP ratio is rising, not falling. Government spending is up $90 billion over last year. That is $5,400 in new spending for every household in the country.

For all that spending, Canadians are not better off. They are falling further behind. Growth has slowed to 1.1%, the second-weakest in the G7. Unemployment will average 6.4% over the next five years. The gap between rich and poor has widened. Food bank lines are out of control, and 700,000 children have visited food banks. Investment is collapsing, housing starts are stalling and productivity is at its lowest point in decades.

This is not building Canada strong. It is building a weaker economy and a heavier burden for the next generation.

Clearly, this so-called new Liberal government and the banker Prime Minister have learned nothing from the past decade under Justin Trudeau. Higher spending is not progress. It is not strength. It is the reason families face higher prices, higher taxes and harder lives every day.

Case in point is the carbon tax. For years, the Conservatives warned that the consumer carbon tax punished families and drove up the cost of living. For years, the Liberals stood in this House and denied this, insisting it somehow made life more affordable. Now, in this very budget, the government brags about cancelling that tax. The Liberals call it divisive and boast that because they did so, gas prices are down and inflation has eased.

However, in the same plan, they double down on the industrial carbon tax. That tax drives up costs for farmers and home builders and pushes prices higher for everyone else. How much will it cost Canadians? How much misery will it inflict before they admit they were wrong again?

We cannot tax the things farmers need for growing food and not expect food prices to rise. We cannot tax the things home builders need for building homes and not expect home prices to climb. We have seen this pattern before: The Liberals finally admit there is a problem, but they turn around and repeat the same mistakes.

Here is another example. In the budget, they promised to provide more certainty to the marketplace, yet what they are doing for the Canadian auto sector is the very opposite. After years of threatening manufacturers with an electric vehicle sales mandate, they have now paused it. Let us kick the can down the road. Let us delay it. Let us review it. They still cannot say what comes next.

How can automakers plan for the future when Liberal policy changes every few months? The 2028 models are being finalized as we speak, decisions that shape jobs and investment for years to come. What are the workers at Honda Canada in Alliston supposed to think when the government keeps flirting with a policy that threatens their very livelihood, especially when the Liberals have failed to defend their industry against the Americans?

That is why the slogans in the budget ring hollow. The Liberal failures have driven jobs, investment and confidence straight out of the country. They shift opportunity abroad instead of creating it right here at home. If they truly wanted to build Canada strong, they would protect Canadian jobs and investment and give consumers a choice by scrapping the EV mandate for good, today.

The Prime Minister has spent months insisting that the budget is not spending; it is investing. We heard the same line from Justin Trudeau for 10 years. Canadians know better. If this were true of the so-called investment, why stop at $280 billion? Why not double it? Why not triple it? If the investment is so great, if every dollar returned more than it cost, there would be no reason to ever stop spending.

We have already seen the results of these so-called investments. Take Northvolt, the Quebec battery plant. The Liberals poured billions into it. The company went bankrupt, no batteries were built and taxpayers were left with nothing to show for it. Then there is Novavax and the $130 million for a vaccine facility that never made a single vaccine. What about the Canada Infrastructure Bank? Since 2017, it has approved up to $13.2 billion for 76 projects, yet only two have been completed. How much of the $280 billion that the Liberal government is calling capital investments will yield similar results?

After 10 years, it has become apparent that what the Liberals call investment is what Canadians call waste. The evidence of that waste is not just failed projects; it is the results for ordinary people and the impact the waste has on their communities. After a decade of this so-called investment, our economy is weaker, productivity is falling and wages are stagnant.

Look at page 53 in the budget. The Liberals' own budget admits it. On page 53, they concede that if Canada’s productivity growth had simply matched that of the U.S. since 2017, the median income of a family with one child would be nearly $11,000 higher. That is the real return on Liberal investing: less growth, lower incomes and fewer opportunities for Canadians.

It is the same story that Canadians have seen for 10 years: a government that mistakes announcements for achievement and spending for progress. Canadians are working harder, paying more and getting less in return. They do not need a banker’s budget that builds up the debt while they fall further behind. After all, Canada’s strength has never come from government expenditures. It comes from the determination of Canadians: the family in Tottenham saving for their first home, the small business in East Gwillimbury growing and succeeding, and the farmer in the soup and salad bowl of Canada working 16 hours a days harvesting carrots to feed this nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member on how accurate a number of those statements are, but there is a substantial difference between the government and what we are witnessing across the way. We believe that investing in Canada is the way we are going to build a stronger and healthier country. By investing in Canada, we will have better roads, bridges and infrastructure that supports a healthier economy, and safer communities. This is what the Liberal Party, this government, is working towards: a stronger Canada. On the other hand, we see the Conservatives want to dispose of some of that infrastructure.

They are not voting for the budget. They are more interested in having an election than building a healthier Canada. Can the member explain why that is?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are concerned about affordability for Canadians. This is what this budget is all about.

We were told by the government in the last campaign that it was going to move at speeds Canadians had never seen before. This budget was going to be generational. We have the new Major Projects Office. The other day, I stood in the House and asked for the address, phone number and email. Well, it is not set up yet. Now we have the Build Canada Homes department, more bureaucracy. Where is the Build Canada Homes office? Well, that is not set up yet.

We have heard this song and dance before.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think you should give my colleague from New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury more time. It is always entertaining when he gives us his answers. I congratulate him on his speech.

Many people criticize the Liberal government's new budget for being very conservative. The budget contains a number of measures, and I would like to ask my colleague which of those measures he is happiest with. We will see if this really is a conservative budget. We will put that to the test.

The biggest line item is defence at $56 billion. Tax cuts come to $28 billion, and public service cuts total $51 billion. There is no money for the environment, but there are billions of dollars in tax credits for oil companies.

Which of these conservative measures does my Conservative colleague like the most?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, one Conservative measure I can appreciate is the elimination of the carbon tax. We fought in the House for 10 years for the elimination of the carbon tax, and the other side, the government side, was fighting us every day on that. This is one Conservative measure I see in the budget that I am happy is gone thanks to Conservatives.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government often touts its record on net debt, but it fails to take into account that Canada is the smallest of the G7 economies. It has the smallest currency of the G7 economies, and it is not a reserve currency like the U.S. dollar or the euro. It also fails to take into account subnational debt in this country. It is among the highest levels in the OECD, which the federal government backstops. Just five years ago, a province hit the debt wall, ran out of money, could not pay its doctors and nurses and could not raise a penny on debt capital markets. The federal government had to bail it out.

Would the member comment on that?

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is why we are standing here today. We are talking about $80 billion. So that Canadians understand, just servicing that debt costs more than we spend on health care and unemployment insurance. We would need GST at 15% just to cover the interest on the debt. It is completely out of control.

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

Mr. Speaker, I noted the hon. member's comments about poverty, and I wondered if he had seen the new report from the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. There is no surprise if he has not, as it was just released this morning. It points out that Canada is off track in meeting its sustainable development goals to reduce poverty. The most recent numbers show that since 2020, although we had a drop in poverty during the COVID period, the poverty rate has been increasing, up from 6.4%. In 2023, it reached 10.2% and is rising.

I look for the member's comments.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, New Tecumseth—Gwillimbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is why I said that this budget should have been about affordability for Canadians.

Regarding the environment, the planting of two billion trees is now gone. It is another reversal, another broken promise. This budget should have been entitled “Broken Promises”.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Rural Development)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming in support of the 2025 budget and our plan to build Canada strong and Nipissing—Timiskaming strong.

The budget is of critical importance to the 90,000 residents across the 35 communities that make up our riding. In the weeks leading up to the budget, I met with constituents to understand their situation. I also spoke with members of community organizations, such as the Rotary Club of North Bay, the Canadian Federation of University Women and the Temiskaming Municipal Services Association.

Overall, I would say that my riding is not so different from others that I have heard about in this chamber. There are issues regarding housing and homelessness. Families are facing financial pressures. Tariffs are disrupting business supply chains, and municipalities are facing infrastructure gaps. At the same time, I found that people understood that Canada is facing economic challenges. While they would like things to be different, they understand that we need to redefine Canada's trade and security relationships.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Many constituents have also told me that they feel reassured to have a stable, calm and economically credible Prime Minister leading our country in these turbulent times. A resident pointed out to me that, at the recent United Nations meeting in New York, more than 700 requests for meetings with our Prime Minister poured in from foreign leaders, CEOs and business representatives from around the world. It was explained to me that this is a historic number of requests for a Canadian leader at such an event, which is a testament to the confidence that other countries have in Canada. Our Prime Minister explains it best when he says that Canada “has what the world wants”.

As the member of Parliament for Nipissing—Timiskaming, I am proud to say that my riding also has many products and services that the world needs. Businesses in Nipissing—Timiskaming in sectors such as mining, forestry, aviation and aerospace, advanced manufacturing, and agriculture ship across Canada and around the world. That is why, in only the few days since the budget was presented, I have received calls from representatives from a few companies seeking information about the new productivity superdeduction. They quickly understood, and one replied, “This will help my business grow as I can now deduct significant capital investments.” I know of other companies that have already taken advantage of the regional tariff response initiative delivered by FedNor, Export Development Canada's trade diversification program. There are company officials in the mining sector in my community who are looking at the $2-billion sovereign fund for critical minerals and how this may tie into their business operations.

The budget contains many measures to stimulate business growth. It includes support for important economic development organizations, such as the Northern Ontario Farm Innovation Alliance. It also contains funds for Wood WORKS! and Innovation Initiatives Ontario North. I have encouraged all businesses and organizations in my riding to read the budget and to understand how it is positioning Canada, and this is very important as the most competitive jurisdiction in the world for new business investment. Therefore, I think everyone will agree that this budget would support investment and is progrowth.

However, ultimately, the budget is truly pro-Canadian and pro-Nipissing—Timiskaming residents. It is a budget that would encourage Canada's growth, yes, but in doing so, it would create well-paying jobs, reduce the cost of living and, most important, protect our Canadian way of life. Prior to the budget, at our constituency offices in Temiskaming Shores and North Bay, we received calls from residents who were concerned about cuts to the dental care program, which has become so essential to families in our riding. We received calls from seniors who were panicked about misinformation that was circulating about cuts to old age security benefits. Today, I am pleased to confirm to residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming that budget 2025 would protect the vital social programs that matter to the citizens of our riding, and I will name them.

They are the Canada child benefit, the national school food program, the Canada disability benefit, the old age security program, Canadian student loans and grants, $10-a-day child care, the Canada workers benefit, the Canadian dental care plan and pharmacare.

It is difficult to summarize everything budget 2025 holds for the citizens of Nipissing—Timiskaming, but I would like to focus on a few points.

As a former mayor, I know there are significant infrastructure gaps that communities have simply not been able to tackle. For example, in my riding, the town of Powassan and the township of Nipissing have had to close a rural bridge they shared because it was simply too expensive to repair. Unfortunately, this had consequences for local farmers who have to take a roundabout route.

These municipalities will now be able to apply to the build communities strong fund. This $115-billion fund over five years will work to meet the needs of communities in Nipissing—Timiskaming from up north in Englehart to Trout Creek in the south, to Temagami First Nation in the west and to the town of Mattawan the east, and every community in between.

Equally important to mention is that these public funds will come with a requirement to buy Canadian. Canada is moving from a best-efforts approach to a clear requirement to buy Canadian. This will apply to our two excellent district social services boards, which are striving to ensure that everyone has a roof over their head. I know they are already working on projects that will bring housing solutions for those who are homeless, those who are in need of supportive housing and those in need of affordable housing.

Nipissing—Timiskaming is also home to six first nation communities, and budget 2025 recognizes their acute needs for housing. They have worked with our government to ensure that the budget addresses urban and on-reserve indigenous housing. It is important to note that the $25 billion the government has directed to housing is Canada's most confident housing plan since World War II. It is significant. The budget also continues to address things like Internet services in Marten River, Temagami, communities around Lake Nosbonsing and the Mattawa River.

I know that young people in my community are excited about the new youth climate corps and the Canada summer jobs program. Nipissing—Timiskaming has a large francophone population, so support for Radio-Canada is welcome.

I also want to highlight action on fraud through the national anti-fraud strategy. North Bay is home to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, and we welcome this attention to protecting people from fraud.

I should also mention the organizations that work so hard in our riding to promote our environment, such as the Canadian Ecological Centre.

I would like to conclude by touching on a final area of the budget that is important to my riding and that is defence.

North Bay likes to boast that no other community in Canada loves its military as much as its residents do. Since 1951, it has been home to the Royal Canadian Air Force and has protected North America's air sovereignty. With a junior A hockey team called the North Bay Battalion and a mascot named Sarge, North Bay understands the importance of Canada's significant investments in personnel, equipment, training and infrastructure to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces can protect our country.

There is much more I could say about budget 2025. I will simply say I am proud to support a budget that invests in the residents, organizations and communities of Nipissing—Timiskaming and ensures a prosperous future for the children of the riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming.

[Rosemarie Falk, Conservative, Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK]

Mr. Speaker, ultimately, we know the emissions cap is a production cap. On page 108 of the budget, it says, “Effective carbon markets, enhanced oil and gas methane regulations, and the deployment at scale of technologies such as carbon capture and storage would create the circumstances whereby the oil and gas emissions cap would no longer be required as it would have marginal value in reducing emissions.”

Does this mean that the government plans to make the production of energy in our country minimal since the cap will be marginal in emissions?

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks a very good question, but I would like to reply with the many good things that our budget includes and focus on the real relief it would bring to Canadians.

I would like to speak about personal support workers in my community. It is an excellent example of how this budget is different and why it is important to Canadians. For example, I have a 95-year-old father, and personal support workers are very important in his life and the life of my family. We were absolutely delighted when the government came forward with the first-ever pension plan and tax deduction in support of personal support workers.

In fact, in my community lives the chief union steward for the Service Employees International Union, representing nearly 60 personal support workers in Nipissing. She said that they are delighted with these important initiatives and investments, and that this is how to invest in Canada and support Canadians.