Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

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

Madam Speaker, I find it disgusting and somewhat shameful that a member of the Conservative Party continues with character assassination of the Prime Minister.

There are even Conservative MPs, including the deputy leader, who have investments in Brookfield. As opposed to dealing with the substance of legislation and the budget, there is a disgraceful attempt at character assassination, time and time again, by the Conservative Party of Canada. That is how low and dirty its members are in regard to politics.

I ask the member this: When are the Conservatives going to start focusing on Canadian interests as opposed to their own political partisanship?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, that got the member going. The truth hurts. Actually, everything I said is open source and based on testimony at the ethics committee and on some of the discussions and questions in the House.

The difference is that the Prime Minister holds the levers of power in this country. Every decision he makes can and will benefit him, Liberal-connected insiders and his corporate buddies. When members of the opposition hold stocks, let us say in Brookfield, they do not hold the levers of power that will enrich themselves.

The truth is the truth, and what I spoke today is the truth.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like my hon. colleague to continue a bit in this vein. It has clearly touched a pressure point for the government.

We talked a lot about how there is a blind trust, but the fact is that we know the shares remain in Brookfield. That is why policies that directly impact and benefit Brookfield, we know, are helping the Prime Minister.

Therefore, I am wondering if the member could clarify why the blind trust, as established, is not doing an adequate job in stopping the Prime Minister from enriching himself.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a simple response because the Prime Minister knows precisely what is in that blind trust. He set up the investment schemes, green infrastructure, etc. when he was advising the former prime minister, so he knows full well what is in that blind trust.

The problem is that every policy decision he makes can and will, in some way, impact him and his corporate buddies. The Conflict of Interest Act, which the ethics committee is studying right now, has a massive hole that one could drive a truck through, and this is what the Prime Minister is applying right now, as it relates to the general application rule. He can make broad policy decisions that impact his company and his investments, like the tax credits, for example, in the budget implementation act, or nuclear deals with the United States in Washington, which his company owns.

All this means that the blind trust is not really blind at all to the Prime Minister and that he can, in fact, use his position to influence policy decisions and make millions at the same time.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite represents a rural riding, as do I in Nova Scotia. I do not know how many farmers he may have, but I certainly think about the opposition party, which holds rural seats. I was very disappointed in the platform of the Conservative Party in April. There was not one single policy platform for the agriculture sector.

The member represents a rural riding. I am wondering if he is willing to talk to the leader of the official opposition, the member for Battle River—Crowfoot, to see whether that can be something the Conservative Party actually stands for. I worry it is a constituency that the party has taken for granted.

I am wondering if the member has any comment on that.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie South—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to represent the rural part of my riding in Innisfil. We have the largest privately held farm in Ontario and the largest onion farm in Canada.

The policies we put forward would have directly impacted, in a positive way, farming communities. For example, the industrial carbon tax is still applied. Every time those farmers buy equipment, buy fertilizer and buy seed, all of that is applicable and has a cascading effect down the supply chain. The hon. member wonders why food inflation and food insecurity are so great in this country. It is a direct result of the failed economic policies of the government that are affecting farmers at the cost level. Those costs are being applied downstream, as well, to the end consumer.

Therefore, I am very proud of the policies we put forward with respect to agriculture, and I am very proud to represent a riding that has agriculture in it.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise this morning to speak to Bill C-15, which is the budget implementation act. For Canadians at home, these are the actual legal and legislative measures the government is introducing to move forward with what it introduced in the budget. It is a great opportunity to talk about what the government is intending to do to help support the Canadian economy in a difficult time.

It was great to see a 2.6% increase in the GDP in the last quarter and, in the last jobs report, 67,000 jobs added. However, I think I would be remiss if I did not highlight the fact that, given what is happening around the world, the U.S. administration changing its trade policy and tariffs implicating some of the critical sectors in our country, this is not a moment we should take lightly. There is a lot of economic duress that Canadians are facing.

The Prime Minister and the government have been very focused on introducing measures here at home that help grow the Canadian economy and build out resiliency in our trade relationships, in order to make sure we are able to control what happens at home. Yes, we are engaging, as a government and as parliamentarians, as we should be, to make sure we build out trading links around the world, but we have to control what we can do at home.

I am going to use the remaining time I have to highlight three or four areas that I think are extremely important at this moment in time, and that matter.

First of all, I want to talk about defence spending. Now, when the Liberal government took over in 2015, defence spending under the Conservative Party had fallen below 1% of GDP. There were consistent investments in the last government to improve that. I do not think they went far enough. I am very pleased to see, under the new government and new Prime Minister, a firm and strong commitment to increase defence spending in this country.

We are living in an uncertain world. We see war in eastern Europe. We see war and conflict in the Middle East. We see changes around making sure we can protect our Arctic security. All of that means we have to invest in our men and women in uniform. I think about my aunt, Mary Blois, who served proudly for 30-plus years in the Canadian Armed Forces. I am very proud of her contribution. I am proud of my family's contribution to the Canadian Armed Forces through multiple generations. We as Canadians need to be proud, but we also need to make sure it is not just pride. As parliamentarians, we are supporting measures that increase capacity and support for the Canadian Armed Forces.

That is why the government is investing $81 billion over the next five years. This is not only to meet our 2% target of GDP spent on defence by the end of this fiscal year. It is also to work toward 3.5% of GDP and an additional 1.5% of GDP that can be connected to defence. This is extremely important.

What does it mean at home in my own riding? I think about 14 Wing Greenwood, Camp Aldershot and the men and women who live in our communities and put on that uniform every day to defend our country. The government has already supported a long-overdue pay increase for the Canadian Armed Forces, and we are building out additional capacity. When I think about 14 Wing Greenwood, I think about the fact that the P-8, the Poseidon aircraft, will be replacing the CP-140. That should be coming online in the next year or two. It will add additional full-time equivalent opportunities at Greenwood, along with the RPAS, a remotely piloted aircraft system. There is a number between 500 and 700 full-time equivalent jobs that will be coming to 14 Wing Greenwood. That is good news for our Canadian Armed Forces. It is good news for 14 Wing Greenwood. It is good news for our communities in the Annapolis Valley.

One of the things I am working on as a parliamentarian, alongside the hon. member for Acadie—Annapolis, is building additional housing. We need to make sure there is requisite housing, of course, primarily for our Canadian Armed Forces members. As the community grows, there is tremendous opportunity in that domain as well. We need to make sure we are there on housing. That will be something I am working for.

It is worth noting that Nova Scotia has 2.5% of the Canadian population, but 20% of the personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces are located in Nova Scotia, and 40% of defence assets in this country are in my home province. That represents a great source of pride but also an opportunity to have, as we build up defence capacity in this country, an ability to grow our communities with it, whether from a procurement perspective or just through additional membership and support for the Canadian Armed Forces. This is something I am going to be working on.

It is also something we need to think through strategically because the existing infrastructure channels and bilaterals do not always take into account the growth that will be forthcoming. I had the opportunity to talk to the Minister of National Defence about this, along with his deputy minister, at the Halifax International Security Forum. It is something we need to do more on, but this is a generational investment. I was certainly disappointed to see some members of the House vote against our Canadian Armed Forces on that measure.

Let us now talk about infrastructure. We have had generational infrastructure investment in Kings—Hants. Our communities are growing, and I certainly take a lot of pride in seeing the resilience of our regional economy in the Annapolis Valley and in Hants County. However, as former County of Kings mayor Peter Muttart said, the infrastructure underground, like waste-water and water infrastructure, is not sexy but sure is essential. If we are looking to build out housing, grow our communities or update existing infrastructure, we need to make sure those programs are in place.

Under the investing in Canada infrastructure plan, the government made significant investment, but we have to make sure it is renewed. This budget contains 51 billion dollars' worth of infrastructure spending, first through the Canada community-building fund, which is a direct transfer through the provinces to municipalities that supports infrastructure across this country.

There is one thing I am very proud of, and maybe not all new members of Parliament know this: For the longest time, the former gas tax fund, now the CCBF, did not allow those municipal transfers to support fire hall infrastructure. I think of all the members' ridings that have volunteer fire departments. This is something we changed to allow municipalities to use that federal transfer to support fire hall infrastructure. Although it may not be needed in Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto and even Halifax, it is sure needed in small communities like Maitland, Brooklyn, Kentville and areas around Canning. There are so many volunteer fire departments.

While I am on my feet, I want to say to the men and women who volunteer their time to protect our communities that we could not be more grateful, which is exactly why we increased the volunteer tax credit, as well, in the last fiscal update.

This infrastructure is going to be important. One of the goals I want to see this infrastructure funding support, through the $17-billion FPT stream, is a new recreation complex for the County of Kings. This is a project that might be between $80 million and$100 million. It will need federal financing. This is something I am focused on and want to get done. As it relates to West Hants and East Hants, some of the areas we are focused on are certainly housing and water development to support our growing communities.

I will make a quick mention of agriculture and forestry. In Kings—Hants, these are extremely important to our regional economy.

Agriculture is mentioned throughout this budget, and we have increased the program commitments. This is extremely important. There are measures in this budget that I highlighted for the member for Barrie South—Innisfil, and I have been chastising my Conservative colleagues throughout this fall session because there was nothing in the Conservative platform for agriculture. Objectively, this is the first time in a long time that the Liberal Party has a better platform for agriculture. This budget delivers on programs that increase business risk management tools and support agri-marketing for export development. I give credit to the Minister of Agriculture, who was in Mexico supporting the development of markets for apples from the Annapolis Valley and beef products from the country. There are good things happening. Conservatives have a bit to answer for as it relates to that question.

On forestry, there are a number of critical supports, including ITCs for biomass and waste, which are really important.

I also want to talk about small businesses. This budget is clarifying the carbon rebate for small businesses, which is important. We are also putting in a productivity superdeduction, which is the ability of small businesses to write off capital expenditures, within one fiscal year, against their taxable income for the types of investments that increase productivity. This is important for small and medium-sized businesses across this country, including in my riding.

The last thing is debt. We will hear Conservatives suggest that the fiscal track is unsustainable, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed that the fiscal track is sustainable. We have a AAA credit rating, which S&P and Moody's put in place. We have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7 and the second-lowest deficit in the G7. Also, when the Conservatives were in government in 1990, 35¢ of every dollar was being spent on debt management. Right now, it is less than 10¢. The Conservatives stand up and suggest that the fiscal track is unsustainable, but this is simply not true.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to acknowledge that the member in his speech talked about support for the Canadian Armed Forces. I support that 100%. I voted against it because I do not have confidence in the government.

However, what the member did not talk about was that there are clawbacks in the budget to Veterans Affairs Canada, particularly around the indexing of pensions and the way things are calculated. I know veterans on social media and groups that help reach out to veterans in need. There have been clawbacks. In the last 24 hours, one veteran was told he has to pay back $89,000 to CRA, while another veteran has to pay back $69,000. For six to nine years, VAC did not do any clawbacks. All of a sudden veterans are being told they need to fix this because this is wrong, and VAC is going after veterans right across the country.

Why does this member support cutting support to our veterans and the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member will make sure that he carries the correct message forward about what is and what is not happening, because there has been a lot out there in the news.

What the government is doing in the budget and proposing is actually just moving the price of cannabis through a medicinal licence from $8.50 down to six dollars a gram. There has not been any change to the indexing of veterans' pensions. There has been a slight change around the provincial aggregate in terms of what it is. If the member is suggesting there are veterans who have been getting letters asking for $89,000, I am happy to work across the aisle to get the correct information and make sure we work on that collectively.

Just to be clear, veterans' pensions are going to continue to be indexed moving forward on the basis of either the CPI or the public sector basket of goods, whichever is higher. That has not changed. I hope he can make sure that record is very clear out in the public domain.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague touched on many of the topics and themes in the budget. However, he obviously failed to address the environmental issue, even though the Bloc Québécois was calling on the federal government to stop funding oil companies and instead use the money to fund a green, clean energy transition.

Nuclear waste also has environmental consequences. I want to talk about that. As we speak, my colleague from Repentigny is holding a press conference with representatives from indigenous communities and environmental groups to speak out against transporting nuclear material to the Chalk River site, where it could contaminate a major waterway.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I believe that, along with renewable energies and clean energy, nuclear energy is an essential part of the solution when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. The nuclear energy sector remains essential for our country, and we have the necessary capacity to provide safe energy. Of course, there is a process in place to ensure that waste disposal is done safely. It is a federally regulated process.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would congratulate the hon. member for his wonderful speech.

There is a lot of the steel industry in my riding, especially Stelco, ArcelorMittal Dofasco and National Steel Car. I would like to ask the hon. member what else there is for steelworkers in the budget.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague from Hamilton Centre is a strong champion for the steel sector. When we think about Hamilton, when we think about Sault Ste. Marie and when we think about our communities in Regina and across this country, it is a foundational pillar of the Canadian economy and it is under duress because of section 232 tariffs from the United States.

The government has taken a number of measures, including most recently limiting the ability for steel to be imported from elsewhere around the world. We have measures in place, including around EI, to help support workers who are being impacted. We are focused on a procurement strategy that will be absolutely focused on being able to build out Canadian steel production. It is a difficult time, but the government is focused on what we can do.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, why do you not give the member for Central Newfoundland a question? I would be happy to do that. With UC, I think we should do it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

We are out of time for the hon. member's slot.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, which represents so much of what we have in this country. We have the larger city of London and rural communities such as Eagle and New Sarum. We have burgeoning communities like St. Thomas, which were once viewed as small farming towns but now are growing to tens of thousands of people, who are coming from all over the country and all over the world.

All of these people have been seeing, under the last 10 years of the Liberal government, how unaffordable life has become. We see it at the grocery store. We see it in housing. Home ownership, which used to be a dream that everyone could rally around, has now become, for so many people, especially young people, a pipe dream. It has become a fantasy. Grocery costs, which we once largely acknowledged had to be paid and could be managed, would maybe be a little more expensive one week and people would clip coupons to save a little bit here and there, but groceries have now become a luxury to some people.

We see this locally. Food bank usage has been on the rise across the country. The St. Thomas Elgin Food Bank expects to have to feed 30,000 mouths this year. That is the third straight year of record demand. That is unsustainable. A society in which people need to use the food bank to fill their fridges and pantries is not a society that is functioning the way it must. What Canadians needed and deserved was a budget that would put affordability front and centre.

As we discuss the budget implementation act, the law that applies the Liberal government's budget to the country, the question I am left with is this: What are the government's priorities, truly?

The Prime Minister, infamously now, a couple of weeks ago, when asked about his conversations with the United States as it pertained to getting a deal for Canada to protect Canadian workers, said, “Who cares?” That has become a rather dismissive response that I think is indicative of how the Prime Minister has viewed many of the concerns facing Canadians, certainly affordability concerns. Most Canadians do not have millions upon millions of dollars of assets and Brookfield stocks to rely on. Canadians have to scrimp and save to get by. Canadians have to deal with these realities in a way that the Prime Minister does not. We also have to deal with the fact that the Liberal government has largely been in the driver's seat for the last 10 years as these problems have ballooned or been aggravated beyond what Canadians can withstand.

I come back to the question of priorities. I have spoken about this budget to more constituents than I can count. People have sent me emails. I have had phone calls, and I have met people in the riding. In fact, someone came up to me at the grocery store and we looked at the products that people are having so much difficulty paying for right now. None of these people have come to me and said that what we need in this country and what they are really concerned about is that Canada does not have Eurovision. No one has said that. Eurovision is in the budget. There is $150 million for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as “cultural investment” to create a plan for Canada to explore participation in the Eurovision Song Contest.

I realize the Prime Minister is a proud European, but even then, I do not think it is a priority for Canadians. Not one single person has said that is something they believe their hard-earned tax dollars should go toward.

Similarly, no one has told me that they cannot afford groceries, their daughter cannot afford a house and their son cannot find a job, but what would be really helpful is more money for government consultants. It is possible some constituents have told some Liberal MPs that, but not one has ever told me they think we need to give Deloitte more money or that KPMG is really struggling in this economy. However, the Liberal budget has $26 billion for consultants. That is an increase of just shy of 40%. Maybe the Liberals could hire one of the consultants to come up with a report on how to reduce reliance on consultants. Yes, they did that, and they are still increasing the amount of money they are spending on consultants.

I come back to the question of priorities. We have pointed out that this is an irresponsible budget, a budget that runs up a deficit of $78 billion. By definition, a deficit is the government spending money it does not have. It can only collect this from two places. It can take out loans. It can borrow the money and thus increase the debt burden on Canadians, or it can increase taxes. Either way, Canadians are going to have to pay for it. Canadians will pay for it now with their taxes, or they will pay for it next year with their taxes.

We know the debt interest that Canadians have to shoulder, the debt interest Canadians have to pay, is billions upon billions upon billions a year. This year, we are spending more on debt interest than we are collecting in GST revenue. We are spending more on debt interest than we are giving the provinces in health transfers. This is unsustainable.

The $90 billion in new spending in this budget is about $5,400 for every Canadian family. Of that, $1,400 is going to the consultants. Where are Canadians expected to find this money? We are being told that this is generational investment, but it is generational debt. It is money the government is spending now that it does not have and that eventually will come due. It is the next generation and the generation after that, unless there is a course correction, by which I mean a Conservative government, that will be forced to continuously fund the government's reckless credit card debt.

If the government could come to us and tell us what the gain would be, it would be a different story. Again, what do we see? We see more money going to bankers and bondholders. We see more money going to consultants. We see auto jobs fleeing. I spoke yesterday in question period with the industry minister, who promised 40 days ago now a full update from GM on the shuttering of the CAMI plant in Ingersoll, which is not in my riding but employs, or I should say employed, a number of the people I represent. We are 25 days beyond that 40-day deadline and there is no plan. Christmas is coming and more Canadian auto workers are getting pink slips.

The situation is quite grim. GDP per capita is used to gauge differences in living standards across countries. Higher levels of GDP per capita output are generally found in more developed countries, but we have seen that this has not grown in seven years. There has been profound economic decline under the Liberal government's watch. We have often heard in this chamber that this is a “new government”. It is a new government that looks an awful lot like the old government, not just in terms of the composition on the benches and in the cabinet, but certainly in the spending.

I did not know it was possible to outspend Justin Trudeau, but I admire the Prime Minister on that achievement, which, again, I never would have thought possible. If he wanted to be in the history books, he has done it. He has outspent Justin Trudeau, one of the most spendthrifty prime ministers this country has ever had. Now we ask how Canadians are going to pay for it, how we are going to be forced to fund the government's credit card spending and what the message to the next generation is.

I go back to the Prime Minister's comments to young people just a few weeks back, when he told them they would have to make sacrifices. My background is in media. I was a journalist before I entered the House. I have some breaking news for the Prime Minister: They have been making sacrifices. Youth have been sacrificing, which is why so many young people for the first time in their lives voted Conservative this past election, because they did not believe they had a future under the Liberals. They did not trust the government, under whose watch they could not find a job or buy a house, or trust that it would have their backs moving forward.

These people need more than a government that is going to shrug its shoulders and say, “Who cares?” They need a government that is going to put affordability first, a government that will put their future first and a government that will respect that racking up deficits and debt is not the way we grow a country. Attracting business, attracting investment and allowing for job creation is how we do it.

I do not think Brookfield ever would have put up with the Prime Minister if he were running that company's books the way he is running the country's now. Brookfield actually makes money. Canada right now is losing money. It is not that I am asking the Prime Minister to Brookfield-ize the country, but my goodness, if he is going to be the grand economist he tells us he is, why is he not acting like it?

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

Madam Speaker, coming out of the last federal election just months ago, the Prime Minister made his intentions very clear, and they were to invest in Canada, to invest in Canadians and to make Canada strong, ideally building a country that will be the strongest in the G7. That has been very clear and is reflected in this budget.

We are also trying to grow the economy through trade, whether it is building one Canadian economy or doing a great deal of work with all the premiers, indigenous leaders, territories and so forth. We are also advancing our trade exports beyond the United States. We see a Prime Minister who has proactively travelled to India and the Philippines to ensure that we can expand trade agreements.

Why does the member opposite not understand the overwhelming commitment to build a strong, healthy Canadian economy? Why does he not get behind it and support it?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am glad our hon. colleague pointed out how much the Prime Minister enjoys travelling. The reality is that Conservatives do support a strong economy, which is why we were saying that we need to get rid of capital gains for profits that are reinvested in Canada. It is why we need to get rid of the consumer carbon tax and the industrial carbon tax. It is why we need to eliminate the barriers to development and home construction. All of these things are still things that Canada needs.

My response to the hon. member would be, if the Liberals are going to take our ideas, they need to take all of them for the sake of the country.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a great speech on this topic. Every time I listen to him, I feel like I am listening to a podcast. He has very smooth delivery.

I want to ask about Bill C-15 and the fact that it has 45 different sections. If we were to read out all of the titles of the sections within the bill, we would be here for 10 minutes. We have time for a 10-minute speech. Does my colleague have any comments about all of the things in the bill?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think it is very difficult when a government tries to shoehorn a large suite of changes into a single bill and then turns around to accuse Conservatives of not working on the government's timeline. We need to get it right more than we need to get it done quickly on some of these things.

I will go back to comments I made earlier about the priorities the government has set out. The government found money in the budget for Eurovision and for seizing firearms from law-abiding gun owners. That would cost 700-and-some-odd million dollars, and that is just what the government has acknowledged as the cost of that program. There are going to be other things as well, but the government has not found the time to come up with a plan to save auto jobs. This is a profound mismatch that desperately needs a government that will put affordability, and what ordinary Canadians care about and need, as its first priority.

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

Madam Speaker, I have not heard from the Conservative benches about this, and I am hoping the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South can let me know if there is a view on the part of the Conservative Party to shifting the budget to always being in the fall. I ask this because I am concerned that we will now have a perpetual panic that we cannot have a Christmas election. We are in a minority Parliament and the cry “we cannot have a Christmas election” only works if a budget is always in the fall.

Does the member have any thoughts on that aspect of the Liberal government's handling of the budget?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her question. Given that she voted for the budget and now says she regrets it, maybe more time to review the budget is necessary for all of us.

I do not take a position on the specific timing of the budget, but I do not respect the Liberal government holding the country hostage by saying to the opposition parties that we must pass this or else, and using that as a cudgel to shoehorn reckless spending into what this country is doing. I think that is very irresponsible, and I would be happy to work with my colleague on finding a way to prevent governments from doing that in the future.

[Branden Leslie, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned in his excellent speech that the GST collected is now going to be less than the entirety of the deficit interest payments we are going to have this year.

Should the Government of Canada change the title of the goods and services tax to the debt servicing tax?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, unlike my colleagues on the Liberal benches, I do not enjoy thinking about taxes all that often, because every time I do, the blood pressure goes up.

I think we need to have a wholesale re-evaluation of government spending. Let us stop looking at Canadians as though they are an endless source of money, or as my Francophone colleagues say, une vache à lait.