Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, for 10 years, the member has been spewing the same talking points from the government side. For nine years, he defended their track record in terms of bail and not jail. Ten years, and now all of a sudden it is a priority for him.

We will take no lessons from that colleague. There are 170 other members of Parliament on the other side. I dare any one of them to stand up.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know that this budget was put together in a hurry and that the Minister of Finance was not ready.

The deficit will reach almost $80 billion this year alone. Now, to meet their deficit targets, the Liberals must find $50 billion in budget cuts over five years.

Of the $50 billion in budget cuts, they have identified only $10 billion, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer and other observers believe they will have difficulty implementing even half of that $10 billion.

I would like to know if my colleague thinks the government will be able to meet its spending reduction targets. If he does not think the government will be able to do that, is he concerned that the deficits will be significantly higher than the $78.5 billion already announced?

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

Mr. Speaker, the simple answer is yes. It is going to be higher because the Prime Minister does not answer to Canadians; he answers to the shareholders of Brookfield. For sure that spending is going to go higher. He has to answer to the shareholders of Brookfield.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Prince George. We share the city of Prince George and also many of those hits that have been given to our local mills and forestry workers. We have heard that 10,000 direct jobs and three to five times that in indirect jobs have been affected by the fact that the Liberals cannot get a softwood lumber deal done.

We have heard that the government has given extra EI to forestry workers and the like. Is that what our friends in Prince George are looking for, extra EI, or are they looking to get their good jobs back?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is probably one of the most frustrating things that we see and hear. In our regions, our forestry workers are proud by nature. Canadians are proud by nature. They do not want handouts, EI or welfare; they want a job. It is really frustrating.

Imagine being 55 or 56 years of age and having worked a lifetime in an industry only to wake up one day and be told that job is no longer there. In many cases in my riding, a lot of these people started right out of high school. It is the only job they know, so they may or may not be retrainable. What are they going to do? There is not another job coming behind to backfill that or a well-paying job available for them. While the handouts are appreciated, especially at this time, what they really want to see is jobs.

I truly believe that if an agreement had been in place long ago, we would not be where we are right now, seeing the incredible numbers in job losses. That is a failure that falls squarely at the feet of the Liberals.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is more than a budget bill. It is the government's attempt to convince Canadians it has a road map for the future. However, when we study what is inside this legislation, we see the same pattern that has been holding Canada back for years now: big promises, vague plans, new bureaucracies and no real path to get anything built or to keep our country secure.

That is why the issues I am about to raise are not side notes; they are symptoms. What we see in this bill mirrors what we are seeing in our major projects, our national defence and our relationship with the United States. There is confusion where we need clarity, more bureaucracy where we need action and politics where we need common sense.

If Canadians want to understand the gap between the government's promises and its performance, they do not have to look far. Take, for example, the much-celebrated pipeline deal between Alberta and Ottawa. It is clear that this deal is going to be handcuffed by the new bureaucracy created in Bill C-15. If Canadians only read the headlines, they would think Canada was already breaking ground, that the steel was ordered, workers were hired and the future was finally on its way.

However, hope is not a plan. When we actually sit down and read the six-page memorandum of understanding, we do not come away feeling inspired. We come away wondering how something this confusing could ever lead to a single inch of pipe in the ground. The memorandum says that approving and starting construction on the pipeline is a prerequisite for moving ahead with the Pathways carbon capture project. Then, on the very next line, it says the Pathways project is a prerequisite for approving and building the pipeline. Two things cannot be prerequisites for each other. It is like trying to tell Canadians they cannot start the car until the engine is running, and the engine will not run until the car starts.

Then there is the timeline. Under this agreement, Alberta and Ottawa, believe it or not, will create something called an implementation committee. The job of that committee is not to start construction, streamline approvals or get shovels moving. Its job is to determine the means by which Alberta can submit a pipeline application to the new Major Projects Office.

Let us think about that. We created the Major Projects Office to approve major projects. Now we are creating a committee to figure out how to send an application to that office. Only this government could design a process that complicated just to figure out where to drop off the paperwork. Under the memorandum, that application is supposed to be ready to submit by July 1, 2026. That is just the start. It could take another couple of years before the federal government decides whether to approve the pipeline.

However, the Pathways project is supposed to start construction in 2027. We are right back where we started. The pipeline depends on Pathways; Pathways depends on the pipeline. Canadians are left with a promise trapped in a hall of mirrors. If an investor is looking at this, what would they hear? Would they hear certainty? Would they hear clarity? Would they hear a country ready to build, or would they hear layers of process, more committees, more offices and no clear sign of when anything would actually move?

Then there is the broader question, the one Canadians are beginning to ask. Why are we the only major oil-producing nation on earth tying new pipeline capacity to massively expensive and uncompetitive carbon capture megaprojects? When we line up the top five producers in the world, the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Russia, China and Canada, four of them are not doing this. Only Canada is. When Canada is the only producer tying itself in knots while its competitors move freely, maybe it is time to pause and ask why.

Why are we building the most complex, costly, unpredictable pathway to development in the world? Why are we creating more steps when we need clearer rules? Why are we making it harder for Canadians to succeed while other nations are making it easier for themselves? Canadians deserve a country where the rules are clear, timelines are real and if we do the work, consult communities, invest capital and meet the standards, we could actually build something.

Right now, this so-called pipeline deal does not give Canadians that confidence. It gives them an MOU that reads like a logic puzzle and a process that seems determined to bury ambition under paperwork. Canadians are not asking for miracles. They are asking for a chance to build, create, grow and contribute to a strong and secure future. They deserve a government that makes that possible, not one that ties every major project in a knot before it even begins.

If the government can tie itself in knots over a pipeline, it should be no surprise that the same drift and confusion found in Bill C-15 has now reached our national defence. That brings me to the next issue, our military readiness and the way the government is handling our most important defence partnership, the one with the U.S.

Let me begin by saying we cannot keep a country safe if we spend more time picking political fights than picking the right equipment for our forces. Our relationship with the U.S. is unlike anything else we have. It is not just a handshake across a border; it is a shared defence of a continent. It is NORAD. It is the Arctic. It is generations of Canadians and Americans serving side by side. It is 45% of our entire economy. Therefore, when the government shrugs at that relationship, when the Prime Minister tosses up his hands and says “Who cares?” about a sitting president, it travels further than he thinks. It echoes in Washington, raises eyebrows in NATO and feeds a dangerous idea that Canada is willing to play politics with its own security.

Nothing illustrates that better than the government's sudden wobbling on our fighter jet replacement. Canadians are not interested in the technical jargon; they want to know one thing. Will we give the men and women who defend this country the tools they need? Will we stand with our closest ally? Will we make decisions based on security, not political mood swings?

For years, our pilots have been flying aircraft older than many of the people serving in them. Replacing those jets is not a luxury but a necessity. After much study, Canada finally selected a modern aircraft that meets our operational needs and aligns us with our closest partners. Now, instead of finishing the job, the government is flirting with a detour, an attempt to look less American by cozying up to Europe, even if that means buying aircraft that do not meet all our requirements or splitting the fleet in a way that makes training harder, maintenance more expensive and readiness slower.

We do not strengthen sovereignty by weakening our air force, and we do not negotiate effectively with the U.S. while poking it in the eye over the very things it has been urging us to fix for decades. Our allies notice these mixed signals, the Americans especially, because for them this is not about emotion. It is about whether Canada is serious about defending the continent we share. Right now, they see a government trying to send symbolic messages to Europe at the expense of practical co-operation with a partner who actually protects our skies every single day.

With that said, it is important that we touch on the fact that our current Minister of Industry, the one who is now out shopping for jets in Sweden, does not even read the contracts she signs. Now she is floating the idea of abandoning or splitting our fighter fleet, not because it makes Canadians safer, not because it strengthens NORAD and not because our pilots are asking for it, but because it might create jobs, perhaps, if everything works out exactly right. Now that might get her a performance bonus, but it will put our fighter pilots and the safety of our citizens on the back burner.

Canadians want maturity in foreign policy. They want steadiness. They want a government that understands that we cannot insult our neighbour and neglect our obligations, and then expect a warm welcome when we show up asking for trade concessions or continental defence guarantees. Canadians are watching closely because these choices have real consequences. When a government buries projects under red tape, nothing gets built. When it sends mixed signals to our allies, our security weakens. When it makes decisions based on politics instead of clear thinking, Canadians pay the price in higher costs, lower growth and a country that feels like it is slipping out of their control.

Bill C-15 asks Canadians to accept more bureaucracy, more uncertainty and more risk. It asks them to trust a process that has not delivered in over 10 years. Canadians have every right to expect better. They want a country that can build a pipeline without tying itself in knots. They want a military equipped to defend our Arctic and honour our commitments. They want a government that is steady, serious and focused on results, not theatrics.

Leadership means putting the country first, not political ideology. It means choosing certainty for businesses, safety for citizens and fidelity for our partners. Bill C-15 does not reflect those needs. Canada works best when we allow our citizens freedom, protect what matters and build strong partnerships with our neighbours. That is how we work toward a better future for Canada, and that is the direction we as Conservatives will always choose.

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member used the military as an example. Her leader, when he sat in the Conservative caucus, was the lapdog to Stephen Harper, and at the end of the day, they had under 1% of Canada's GDP in terms of military spending. With this Prime Minister, elected just eight months ago, we are at 2% of the GDP and growing.

However, my question is more in regard to the destructive force that the Conservatives play, day in and day out, inside the House of Commons today. I have picked up on this, not only on this particular bill but on an important piece of legislation that Canadians, provinces and stakeholders like law enforcement want passed, and that is the bail reform legislation. The only thing that is preventing it is the Conservative Party of Canada. I have even made the suggestion, because they say they want to have more debate: Would the member not agree that if that is the only excuse the Conservatives can come up with, it is about time we started sitting until midnight so we can accommodate—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Order.

I have to give some time to the member to respond.

The hon. member for Cloverdale—Langley City.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this bill, Bill C-15, chooses political theatrics over performance, and it buries major structural changes in hundreds of pages, creates new powers with no guardrails and pushes Canada further away from the partners and systems that keep us strong. That is why this debate matters. Canadians cannot afford another bill that puts politics first and leaves results for another day.

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

Mr. Speaker, the government is talking about its new program, or the new entity, Build Canada Homes. This morning, the Parliamentary Budget Officer reported that this program will add only 26,000 units over five years, barely 2% more than expected supply growth, but that federal spending on housing will decline 56% in the next three years.

How can the government claim that it wants to double the pace of construction when there is no concrete plan on the table and the announced investments will not even offset the programs that are set to expire?

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 is filled with long-term commitments and big promises, just as we see in building homes bigger or better, yet it delivers no credible path for readiness, whether economic or military. The way this government handles pipelines and procurement shows exactly why Canadians should be wary of a bill that adds more bureaucracy while cutting services. This is all part of the same problem.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here for most of the day, and I find the line of questioning coming from the government member for Winnipeg North very interesting. He stopped talking about Bill C-15, because he does not have any more questions to ask and we put forward the argument that it really would not help everyday Canadians. Now I think he is worried about an upcoming cabinet shuffle and that he may lose his job, because the government is not getting the job done. The government is not getting its legislation passed.

I was in government in Saskatchewan, and I always thought it was incumbent on the government to get its own legislation passed and get the stuff implemented that it wanted to. It was not the opposition's job to get bills passed in the legislature in Saskatchewan, so the member is really in trouble for not fulfilling any of his duties and may therefore lose his job. The louder he gets, we know the more trouble he is going to be in, because he is a complete failure at being a House leader.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the core of the matter is that this same old Liberal government that buries pipelines under more bureaucracy is now sending our military into the future with uncertainty, drift and political posturing. Whether it is major projects or major defence decisions, Canadians are getting the same result: confusion at the top, bureaucracy in the middle, and weaker outcomes for the people who rely on this system every day. That is why I am raising these concerns; it is because the stakes are simply too high to accept muddled leadership.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise this afternoon on behalf of my wonderful neighbours in Oshawa and speak to the recent Liberal budget and Bill C-15, the budget implementation bill.

As a mother of two, a 21-year-old and a 15-year-old, I cannot help but look at the direction of our beloved country with some deep concern. In fact, it is why I decided to run and why I stand here today; it is because I am concerned so much for my children's future and for the next generation.

I hear these same worries from parents in my community every single day. They are raising their children in a Canada that feels less secure, less affordable and less hopeful than the one they grew up in. That truth weighs heavily on families across the country.

Canadians are tired of working harder while falling further behind. They are tired of hearing promises that never turn into results, and they are tired of being told that everything is fine when they are the ones standing at the checkout counter, wondering what they can no longer afford. They are tired of being told to wait, to be patient, to trust a government that has repeatedly shown that it cannot deliver what Canadians need most.

Every week, my neighbours in Oshawa reach out to me and tell me the same thing. They are doing everything right. They budget carefully, shop around, choose generic brands perhaps, and stretch every dollar as far as it will go, but the price of everything continues to rise faster than their paycheques.

Instead of offering relief, the Liberal budget has asked them to keep paying more. Year over year, food costs have increased 3.4% under the Liberals. They had a chance to lower food costs for Canadians by scrapping the industrial carbon tax, a policy that increases the cost of fertilizer, fuel and farm equipment. Instead, of course, they chose to increase it, making food even more expensive and pushing families into hardship. The numbers speak for themselves. Beef is up 16.8%, fresh or frozen chicken up 6%, seafood up 8%, apples up 4%, oranges up 7%, fruit juice up 7%, carrots up 11%, and the list goes on. Even infant formula, something no parent can go without or goes without, is up nearly 6%.

These are not just statistics. They are the quiet sacrifices of families who put back fruit because it no longer fits the weekly budget. These are parents splitting chicken breasts to stretch them across multiple meals. These are seniors choosing between nutritious food and essential medication. These numbers represent real people with real stories, real anxiety and real hardships.

When I speak with young families, they tell me they buy less fruit, less meat and fewer healthy options because they simply cannot afford them anymore. Seniors are telling me that they are skipping meals to stretch their pensions. Parents tell me they go without so their children do not have to. This is not the Canada they grew up in, and it is not the Canada they want to leave to their children and their grandchildren.

Instead of acknowledging these struggles and presenting a real plan to fix them, the government has gone forward with another costly budget that makes life even more expensive. It spends more and delivers less. It ignores the daily reality of Canadians who are already making impossible daily choices.

Affordability is not an abstract policy challenge. It is a crisis in real time. It is a mother standing in the grocery store, putting items back because the total is already too high. It is a senior, sitting in the cold because they are afraid of what their heating bill will look like. It is a young person working two or three jobs, not to get ahead but simply to avoid falling behind.

Despite what I have heard from some older Canadians, I believe that our young people, specifically gen Z, are possibly among the hardest-working of all generations. They simply want good jobs and an affordable life, and they are ready to work hard to do it, but they need the jobs and the job security.

In Oshawa, Simcoe Hall Settlement House recently shared heartbreaking news with me. Families who have never needed help before are now walking into the food bank. Even long-time donors cannot give anymore because they themselves are struggling to get by. One mother said her kids sometimes miss school because she cannot afford to pack a lunch. Imagine a parent having to make that choice in a country as blessed as ours.

These are people this budget was supposed to help, but once again, they have been left behind. After a decade in power, the Liberal government has perfected the art of announcements, yet it has completely abandoned the art of delivering outcomes. The Liberals talk about priorities, but their priorities are not the priorities of Canadians.

Canadians want lower food prices, they want lower taxes and they want stability and certainty. They want a government that understands the basics and focuses on the essentials. This budget does none of that. Instead of giving parents real relief so they can afford to feed their own families, the Liberals point to a national food program, which may sound helpful on paper but does nothing to fix the affordability crisis. Moms and dads want jobs, and they want the ability to feed their own children. They do not want to have to rely on a national food program.

It does not get better than this: Of all the taxes the government could have reduced or eliminated in this budget, it chose to eliminate the luxury tax on yachts and private jets. I guess this is for the Liberals' elitist friends. Instead, the luxury tax remains only on vehicles. It might as well be a car tax or a vehicle tax. Some of these vehicles are needed by our farms and our workers. They need their trucks, and these trucks are now in the category of luxury, but they left the tax on that.

The cost of living crisis is not an accident. It is the predictable result of policies that have made everything more expensive. The industrial carbon tax increases the cost—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I see that I am getting some heckles, and that means that I am touching on some points that they do not like too much.

The industrial carbon tax increases the cost of transporting food, growing food and processing food. It increases the cost of heating barns, operating tractors and running food production facilities. Farmers feel it, truckers feel it, food processors feel it and families feel it every single time they shop for groceries. When we raise taxes on the people who produce food, the cost of food goes up, period. It is that simple, but this government still refuses to accept it and continues to try to gaslight Canadians into thinking that somehow our food prices going up has nothing to do with the industrial carbon tax and food packaging tax, which clearly are driving up the cost of food.

Canadians expect their government to make responsible choices. They expect spending to be targeted, not wasteful. They expect tax dollars to be respected, not taken for granted. They expect leadership, not excuses. Nothing in this budget reflects those expectations. Instead of offering relief, the government continues down a path that has weakened the economy and punished the very people it claims to help.

The more the government spends, the more inflation rises; the more it taxes, the more families struggle; and the more it intervenes, the worse the outcomes become. Canadians are simply asking for a government that understands their reality, a government that knows the difference between a press release and a plan, and a government that measures success not by how much it can spend but by how much better life becomes for the people that it serves.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve a government focused on lowering costs, not raising them. They deserve a government that respects taxpayers, not one that treats them like an endless source of revenue. They deserve a government that listens, understands and acts.

Budgets are more than financial documents; they are moral documents. They reveal what a government values and whom it chooses to prioritize. Families want affordability, stability and opportunity, but instead they get higher prices, higher taxes and fewer chances to get ahead.

Canadians are tired of struggling. They are tired of being ignored. They are tired of broken promises and failed policies. They want a path forward, and this budget does not provide one. Canadians deserve a plan that brings down costs, supports workers, strengthens communities and restores hope. They deserve a government that respects their struggles and delivers real solutions. They are not getting that from this Liberal government or from its budget.

Canadians deserve better. It is time for a government that values the people who built this country, feed this country and keep this country going. It is time for a government that focuses on results and not rhetoric. It is time for a government that puts Canadians first.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just in reference to the member's commentary in her speech about the luxury tax, my understanding is that it was costing more to actually collect the tax within the department than to levy the tax. This would be a cost-saving measure within cutting red tape in government.

Surely, she is supportive of that. Would she not be?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure if that is true. I ask that the member provide me, maybe at a later date, some proof of this. I would love to see it.

However, that still misses the point. Canadians are tired of being placated with words. They need action that will actually make a difference for them. My last name is Kirkland, which means it is deeds, not words: facta, non verba. I sure would love to see the government provide a scenario where we are taking care of deeds and not words. Announcements mean nothing.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance heard from the governor of the central bank, Mr. Macklem. The Conservatives asked him whether he thought that the industrial carbon tax was contributing to inflation. The Governor of the Bank of Canada confirmed that, unlike the consumer carbon tax, the carbon tax for large emitters did not generate any form of inflation, as this involves commodities that are often exported.

When the Conservatives kept hammering away and tried again to get the governor of the central bank to say that it was contributing to inflation, he replied in English that if they were looking for inflation, they should look elsewhere. There are plenty of reasons to oppose this budget, but at a certain point, when they start contradicting the governor of the central bank in a debate, is that not an example of the Conservatives indulging in a bit of disinformation from time to time?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, well, I am happy to contradict the governor of the central bank sometimes, especially when eventually he might become our Prime Minister, like the one we have right now. Canadians are not stupid, and they are getting tired of being treated like they are. Listen, the truth is this: We know that with a carbon tax on the big emitters, that cost will be passed down to the consumer. It was a simple bait and switch. Canadians will not be gaslighted any longer. We now have just simply made the consumer carbon tax a hidden tax, which we are paying for anyway. It is just being passed down to the consumer, and Canadians are tired of it. I hear it every day.

[Lianne Rood, Conservative, Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know my colleague is from Oshawa, and I am hearing from my constituents that they are afraid of losing their jobs. We just heard this week that CAMI is laying off workers, and it is right before Christmas. I know she represents a community that also has a lot of auto workers, so I am just wondering if she would like to comment on what she is hearing from her constituents back home in terms of job losses and what they are fearful of.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very thankful that my colleague brought this up, because that is something that is near and dear to my heart. I believe Oshawa is the centre of the heart of auto in the country. I believe our folks in Oshawa are very concerned about their jobs. We are looking at 1,000, possibly 2,000 more on the supply chain, auto jobs that are being lost next month at Christmastime. Everyone is worried. Everyone is scared. They do not know if the government really cares, and it does not help that we have a Prime Minister who says things like, “Who cares?” and that he will go talk to the President about trade “when it matters.” Someone today said, “Don't you know? There is a trade war.” I said, well, we would not know it listening to the Prime Minister, who says, “Who cares?” and that he will talk to him “when it matters”. It matters now. Auto jobs matter. Jobs in my hometown matter.

[Ben Carr, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member referenced an increase to the industrial carbon price. The Premier of Alberta agrees.

Does she believe the Premier of Alberta is wrong?

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is not my job to stand here and decide whether or not a premier of a province is right or wrong, unless it is my own province. It is my job to stand here and tell the government what we think about its budget implementation act. This is what we are discussing here today.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we are analyzing the 10th Liberal budget, the most expensive budget in Canadian history, costing $16 billion more than the Prime Minister promised on the campaign trail.

I will begin by saying that there is nothing in this budget to address the problems facing families who are already struggling to make ends meet, nothing for young people who are contemplating their future with utter despair, convinced that they will never be able to afford a home. In fact, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said today that the Liberals will not be able to fulfill their promise of building 250,000 homes in five years. In reality, it will be 26,000 homes, or 10 times less.

There is nothing for small and medium-sized businesses. I would like to remind members that 99% of businesses in Canada are small and medium-sized businesses. There is nothing in there for them. It has been 10 years of broken promises. During my election campaign, I said that history gets written just once. Well, I want us all to take a look at the current situation after 10 years of Liberal governance, because that will give us some idea of what the future holds. When we look at what has happened, when we look at our history, we can predict where we are headed. Year after year, the Liberals have run deficits. They prioritize ideology over facts, and there is a very worrying tendency to always try to please everyone, as though the bank account is bottomless. The sole aim is to make people happy today in order to get their vote in the future. I believe this seriously undermines Canada's economy and our future.

In fact, recently, in the context of the budget, the Liberals did not negotiate with us. They did not sit down with us, even though they are a minority government. They completely ignored the requests and proposals of the opposition parties. They were willing to spend over $600 million to trigger an election to win a few seats and get a majority. That is the Liberal way: spending money to promote their ideas and points of view and disregarding the public. Of course, they would have blamed the Conservatives. They would have said that it was the Conservatives who wanted to trigger an election before Christmas. All we were asking for was an affordable budget so that Canadians could have access to a promising future, not a future with debt for generations to come. The answer we got was that the situation we were in was the fault of the United States and Donald Trump.

When a government is not properly prepared, when it runs up debt year after year, when it spends recklessly and ends up in a bad situation and a bad position, can it really blame that on someone else? Should the government not look in the mirror and admit that it should have done more to prevent this situation? The reality is that there is no world where there will never be tough times. However, the Liberals do not seem to see that. They want to live in a fantasyland. Would a smoker really be surprised to learn they have lung cancer? I doubt it. Would someone who gets no physical activity and overeats regularly say that there was no way to see it coming when they have a heart attack? I think we all know the answer, and that answer is no. When a government relies on an ideology that assumes that it can spend endlessly and live in a world that is out of touch with the reality of taxpayers, it puts itself in a position where, when times are tough, it has no financial cushion and the situation is precarious.

As I said earlier, history gets written just once. I would like us to look at our Prime Minister's past. Before he became Prime Minister, he was the head of Brookfield, a Canadian company. When things started getting tense with the United States, he moved the company's head office to New York for his own benefit. During the election campaign, the prospective prime minister was asked a question. He was told that Brookfield was Canada's biggest corporate tax evader, owing $6.5 billion in unpaid taxes in Canada. He was asked whether he would fix this problem if he became prime minister. He replied that he would ensure that businesses pay their taxes in Canada. So far, he has done nothing.

When he became Prime Minister, he was asked to cut ties with Brookfield. Well, last week, Brookfield's chief operating officer came and told us that he had no problem coming to Canada for coffee with the Prime Minister and spending half a day in his office. When he announces Canadian investments abroad, Brookfield is always there a day early or a day later in the same sectors.

Last week, our Prime Minister was in Alberta where he announced plans for pipelines, carbon capture, nuclear energy, data centres and power lines. Just a little bit of research shows that Brookfield is heavily involved in all these sectors. That is the reality now. Canadians are starting to question this much-talked-about budget that spends their money in sectors that seem to greatly benefit our Prime Minister. When we cry scandal here, we are told that we are conspiracy theorists, so I will look at other facts.

The Liberals promised to keep the deficit at $62 billion, which is already far too high, but now the budget is projecting a deficit of $78 billion. They said that they would reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio, but that ratio has increased. They promised to lower inflation, but it has gone up. They promised to reduce spending, but it has increased by $90 billion. They promised to help municipalities by cutting their taxes on new housing construction in half, but that is another broken promise.

The budget asks Canadians to spend more on interest on the debt than on health transfers to the provinces. That is huge. We are getting so deep into debt that we are paying more in interest than we are investing in something as crucial as health care. The Liberals are patting themselves on the back for creating more social programs and telling themselves that they are responding to demand and that Canadians need those programs. The problem is precisely that: Demand is growing, and the Liberals are congratulating themselves because it is growing.

There are needs in our communities, and there are children who are going hungry. Everyone would agree that children should be able to eat their fill. No one is against that. However, there is nothing to be proud of when this trend is on the rise, there are more and more children going to food banks, and more and more families struggling to make ends meet. I have been speaking with food bank representatives, and they told me recently that the face of poverty is changing. In the past, it was people who were unemployed, perhaps even newly arrived immigrants. Today, it is Canadian and Quebec families. Parents who are both employed have to choose between eating, having a roof over their heads, and having a car to get to work. That is the reality, but the government pats itself on the back for doing a good job and creating more and more programs year after year. That is the problem.

Einstein said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. I will leave it to my colleagues to decide for themselves whether that accurately describes the situation.

I mentioned health transfers earlier. Something in the budget that really stood out to me is the total lack of investment in prevention, and the total lack of investment in sports and physical activity.

Let us take a look at the leading causes of mortality in Canada, and hear what the associations dealing with these conditions have to say. The cancer association says that the cornerstone of cancer prevention is to promote physical activity, reduce the amount of time spent sitting, and educate people about the benefits of physical activity. Heart disease is the second-leading cause of death in Canada. Regular physical activity significantly reduces the risk of stroke. In addition, 90% of cases of type 2 diabetes can be eliminated with physical activity. Physical activity also reduces degeneration and lowers the risk of Alzheimer's disease.

The prevention of illness should be a major focus for governments at the municipal, provincial and federal level. To improve health, we have to acknowledge that the solution is not to wait until illness strikes before we take action. Reactionary budgets are always deficit budgets.

My colleague asked a question last week about the government's $500-million investment in the European Space Agency site. The answer really caught my attention. We were told that every dollar invested generates $3 in Canada. I like that kind of answer, because when you invest in physical activity, every dollar invested generates a return of somewhere between $3 and $20, with a recognized average of $13. It is the best return on investment when it comes to physical health, mental health and community health. That would be a generational investment, but there is nothing about that in the budget. As a result, our population is becoming poorer in terms of health, and we will all be forced to pay the price.

The Liberal government has divided its budget into two categories: investments and spending. I wish it would do the same for the health of Canadians by investing in prevention and focusing on healing, because it needs to invest more money in that area.