Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the previous incarnation of the Liberal government was led by a man who believed that budgets somehow magically balance themselves. He clung religiously to that belief, even after 10 years of watching the deficit get bigger and bigger. No wonder he thought Canadians would forgive him if he did not think about fiscal policy. He obviously did not understand that the government deficit is a debt owed by the Canadian people. It does not magically vanish. It has to be repaid, or the government and the country go bankrupt.

With a change at the top of the Liberal Party, Canadians were hoping to be able to look to Parliament for serious leadership. They voted for a government willing to meet and deal with the challenges our country faces. What they have been given instead is an accounting flim-flam, another record deficit with no plan to pay the money back. We can let our great-grandchildren worry about that, as Canada's national debt has passed the once unfathomable $1-trillion mark and continues to grow at more than $4.5 million dollars every hour.

In 10 years, the Liberals have more than doubled the national debt, and what do Canadians have to show for that? Obviously, there is nothing. Bill C-15, budget 2025 implementation act, No. 1, will drive up the cost of living for every Canadian. Whether it is food, home, or anything else, Canadians will pay more.

Just six months ago, the Prime Minister promised to keep the deficit at $62 billion. When the finance minister announced in his budget that the number had grown to $78 billion, it was just another broken Liberal promise. There have been so many that the Liberals do not even keep track. Instead of being lowered as promised, the debt-to-GDP ratio is rising and inflation is rising with it. The Prime Minister promised to spend less. Instead, he is spending a lot more. He is spending $90 billion, which is equal to $5,400 per household in more inflationary spending.

The Prime Minister promised to help municipalities cut their homebuilding taxes in half, and this costly budget breaks that promise. Higher housing costs are the price of this Prime Minister. The Building Industry and Land Development Association has expressed deep disappointment and concern with the budget's response to the serious crisis impacting the housing sector in Canada's largest municipalities. It seems what once was a promise to deliver 500,000 new homes annually has now become a plan that will cost 100,000 jobs. How is that making things better for Canadians? The question and the answer are with the government.

Earlier this year, the Prime Minister was talking about big plans to improve Canada's economy. He promised more investment. His budget reveals investment is collapsing, and Bill C-15 does nothing to help that. There is consistency here, though. As our health care system is strained and in need of help, once again, the federal government plans to spend more on debt interest than on health care transfers. Anyone who can do basic math would tell us that adding to the deficit and increasing the national debt means less money for health care and the other things Canadians need.

Most people do not like paying taxes because they feel the government is just wasting that money. The attitude is understandable when we realize the Liberals are paying more in interest payments on their record debts than they collect through the goods and services tax. This means that every dollar the federal government collects through GST is going to paying off the Liberal debts. None of it is being used to help Canadians. Nothing in Bill C-15 can hide that fact and that reality.

The Liberals are adding $321.7 billion to the federal debt over the next five years, more than twice the $154.4 billion the previous administration planned for the same period. It is double what the previous administration was planning for. Numbers once considered to be unthinkable are introduced with a shrug. There is no plan to put our fiscal house in order. Canadians are going to be paying for Liberal boondoggles for generations to come.

When I look at these numbers, I feel like I am living in a fairy tale. It is not one of those nice Disney fairy tale movies with a happy ending, but a Brothers Grimm tale where, at the end, people get eaten. The Liberals are telling us this is a Disney budget, but the numbers are pretty grim and, like most fairy tales, not believable. We can forget the fancy Liberal words and look at the reality: Bill C-15 does not have a happy ending.

Under the Prime Minister, real GDP has grown by only 1.1% in 2025, which is the second-lowest growth in the G7. The unemployment rate is expected to be at 6.4% over the next five years and Canadians will still suffer from the effects of the job-killing industrial carbon tax.

In the Gospel of Matthew, we are told the story of two men. There was a wise man who built his house on rock. The rain came down, the streams rose and the wind blew and beat against the house, yet the house did not fall because it had its foundations on the rock. What is true in home construction is also true in government spending. The Prime Minister and his minister of finance remind me of the other man in that biblical story, the foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose and the winds blew and beat against the house, and it fell with a great crash.

This budget implementation act would firmly build Canada's fiscal house on sand. It is only a matter of time before our fiscal building and our nation crash.

Canadians expect better from the current administration than more broken Liberal promises. It was not even a year ago that the former Liberal finance minister resigned rather than tell Canadians that the deficit would balloon to $62 billion and that the government had lost control of the finances of the nation. The Liberal Party turned to the current Prime Minister as a saviour, believing his reputation for sound fiscal management. Instead of a plan to get government finances in order, we have a plan to spend, spend, spend and a record deficit for a non-pandemic year. That is not a plan; it is a disaster.

If I had run my business the way these Liberals run the country, I would have gone bankrupt almost immediately. Government is not a business, and I do not expect it to be run like a business, but I do expect it to run with an understanding that today's decisions impact the future. This is taxpayer money that we are entrusted with, and we need to spend it wisely. Deficit spending that adds to the national debt with no plan or hope of repayment is not wise. The Conservatives asked for an affordable budget for an affordable life. Instead, they got reckless spending that would do nothing to make life better for the people of this country.

On behalf of the Canadians whom the Liberals have priced out of food, homes and life, Conservatives will oppose this costly deficit budget that would gamble away Canada's future. Can this bill be fixed? Yes it can, if the Liberals are willing to listen to reason. Canadians need a boost to their take-home pay. They need affordable homes and food. To do that, the Liberals need to end the hidden taxes, cut wasteful spending, open our country to opportunity and get rid of bureaucracy to build affordable homes.

Is the Prime Minister willing to do the work, or to work with everybody, to support a positive, hopeful and affordable future for all Canadians? The question remains with the government and with the Prime Minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to deal with a misconception that the Conservatives like to portray. When we look at the G7 countries, such as the U.S.A., France, Germany and so on, we see that Canada has the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio the second-lowest deficit to GDP ratio. If the Conservatives were to do a bit of research, not much, they would realize that, when the current leader of the Conservative Party sat in the Conservatives' former caucus, they had the highest deficit in the last 50 to 60 years, when we factor in the value of the dollar.

I am wondering if the member can provide his thoughts on how he would define hypocrisy related to the Conservative Party of Canada today.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have learned in life to compare myself to the people above me and ahead of me, not to the people behind me.

The government has given us the same story over and over. It talks about the comparison to whatever, such as the comparison to the debt in so many years. All these numbers do not help Canadians with what they deal with on a daily basis. Millions of Canadians are lining up at food banks, and that should be of huge concern to the government, which does not seem to be the case. Canadians cannot afford to buy a home. Canadians cannot afford to even continue to have the standard of living we have always had.

If those are not enough examples for the government to change course over how it does business, that means we are in deep trouble.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate. My colleague's speech was wonderful.

Listening to the member for Winnipeg North, it is as if he lives in an opposite world. He will twist and turn and try to make comparisons, but these are the simple facts. Food bank usage in our country is higher than it has ever been; there are more people in Canada using the food banks than ever. With regard to the quality of life index, we were number five in the world, and we are now number 27. How can the member keep telling Canadians how good they have it, when time after time there are job losses, with 1,000 more job losses at Algoma Steel?

The budget is a Brookfield budget that benefits bondholders and bankers, not everyday hard-working Canadians. Can the member please tell me if there is anything in the budget that might make life more affordable for the average hard-working Canadian, or is it all about bankers and bondholders?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of bad news in the budget. One piece is the $78 billion of extra deficit, with $321 billion for the next five years. At any simple level of understanding, we know this has to be paid somehow by Canadian taxpayers and by future generations.

My hon. colleague is correct; the lineups at the food banks are a huge concern. It is something we have not seen in our history. There is the need for housing and the need to at least carry out our day-to-day lives. There are also a number of bankruptcies in the country.

All these are indications in front of us. Any wise person looking at the situation and thinking about what is going on will see that unless we change course, unless things take a different direction, and unless we at least admit we are in trouble and we start facing the issue as responsible people, we are asking for disaster, and that is what we have seen ahead of us.

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

Madam Speaker, it has also been pointed out by the Parliamentary Budget Officer that in the new lingo the Prime Minister uses, “spend less...invest more”, even the invest more part apparently is not true, and not just in a little sense; it is actually close to $100 billion short of his investment promise.

Can the member speak to the Prime Minister's words? Should Canadians hold him to his word that he is actually going to spend less and invest more?

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we have been hearing the word “investment” for the last 10 years. There has been more debt and more money to service the debt. It seems as if the government does not want to listen to true numbers, whether they are coming from the PBO or coming from us and from others around the country.

Unless we accept the reality of the last 10 years, including now, we will still be going in the same direction: more debts, more debt service and more deficits for future Canadian generations to carry. If those are not enough warnings, we are in trouble.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and to speak to the budget implementation act. As always, I have themes. Today I am going to pick up on these themes: things I am glad were not in the budget, things I am glad were in the budget, things I wish were not in the budget, and things I wish were in the budget. I will start with the things I am glad were not in the budget.

The first is the capital gains tax on people's house equity. This was a policy that had been floated in previous Liberal platforms. The Prime Minister said he was not going to include it. I am glad it is not there, because the equity people have in their home is typically part of their retirement plan. As we have an aging population, the government needs to keep its hands off our pensions and our home equity.

The second thing I am glad not to see in the budget is two of the recommendations that came from the finance committee: recommendation 430, which would have revoked charitable status for faith-based organizations; and recommendation 429, which would have revoked charitable status for pregnancy crisis centres.

There is no way the government could afford to provide the service and compassion that faith-based organizations are providing across the country, so I am really glad to not see recommendation 430 in the budget. I am just concerned that it was even supported by the Liberals to come forward from the finance committee. However, it is part of a continuing war on people of faith in this country, as we see playing out right now in Bill C-9, in which the government is co-operating with the Bloc to remove the protections, under the Criminal Code with respect to hate speech, for people of faith to be able to express themselves and read their scriptures.

I do not really know where the Liberal government thinks it is going with this, as 65% of Canadians are people of faith. To try to remove their charter rights to freedom of religion seems counterproductive. I hope the government will rethink that, but I was really glad not to see it show up in the budget.

With respect to revoking the charitable status for pregnancy crisis centres, I will say that the Liberals are always talking about a woman's right to choose. However, if women really have a right to choose, then some of them are going to choose to have babies, and they are going to need pregnancy crisis centre supports. Therefore I am glad to see that recommendation 429 did not make it into the budget.

The other thing I am glad we did not see a lot of in the budget is the huge spending we have been doing. Last year, $20 billion went to foreign nations for what I would consider to be frivolous and ideological stupidity: gender-just rice, for example. There was also $4 million sent off to Lebanon for multigender accessibility. Honestly, there are Canadians here in this country who are lined up at food banks and cannot afford to live. The priority has to be for Canadians, so I am glad to see that none of those things I mentioned made it into the budget.

Now I will talk about the things I am glad were in the budget.

The first thing I am going to say, and these are probably the only nice comments I am going to make today, is about the building communities fund: $50 billion over five years for a number of things that are supposed to build infrastructure to get us to build affordable housing. That will be really important in my riding. For example, we need storm sewer upgrades in Brooke-Alvinston; stormwater upgrades in Warwick, Watford and Arkona; potable water for Kettle & Stony Point First Nation; a stormwater system expansion in Lambton Shores; and waste water upgrades in St. Clair Township and for Point Edward. Our priority in Sarnia–Lambton is to build affordable housing; this is the infrastructure we need, so I will be petitioning the minister to try to get some of the funding we need in our riding.

That was one thing I was glad to see.

The other thing I would say I was glad to see is $600 million of stable funding for the status of women. If we look at the current situation in our country, which is especially important during the 16 days of activism for battling gender-based violence and as we approach the anniversary of the École polytechnique murders, we see that under the soft-on-crime Liberal policies, every other day there is a femicide in our country. Sexual assault is up 76%. Women make up about half the population, so absolutely there should be a priority on addressing that. I am happy to see some stable funding for it.

Now I will move on to the things I wish were not in the budget.

Let us start with the $78-billion deficit. I do not know how the Liberals cannot understand that every time this kind of deficit spending is put into a budget, it pours fuel on the inflationary fire and drives up the cost of absolutely everything. People simply cannot afford that.

It also results in having to pay a lot more to service the debt. We will be paying $100 billion a year to service just the interest on the debt. It is like lighting up that money every year. Let us think about it. That is more money than we put into our health transfers. Now think of what could be done if we were not paying off our debt, if we actually had some fiscal prudence.

The other thing I am not happy about is that we are going to build, build, build, but that what we are really building in the budget is bureaucracy. Instead of buying F-35s, we will build a defence procurement bureaucracy. We do not need that; we need to buy things that are going to help our NATO allies and put us in a place where we can defend our sovereignty.

We are also building a fourth bureaucracy. How many billions of dollars have we wasted creating housing bureaucracies that do not result in building houses? Housing starts are down again. I do not like that.

With respect to the major projects bureaucracy, I am a fan of building major projects, but the Liberals have not built a major project. There have been a lot of announcements about projects that were already under way, and now the Liberals are building a huge bureaucracy. The government has shown it is terrible at major projects. It took the $4.5-billion Kinder Morgan pipeline and delivered it for $30 billion, two years late. That is the kind of record the government has. It does not need more bureaucracy.

Then there is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The government decided to give it another $10 billion. It is a bank that took $35 billion from municipalities and has not really built many projects. In fact last year it spent $4 million building projects, $38 million on salaries and $9 million on bonuses, and it had $204 million in losses. Why would the government put more money into this kind of failing mechanism?

Another thing I was unhappy to see in the budget is that the government has put our Canada pension plan in the asset part of the government. Those are not government assets; those are the assets of Canadians. Canadians and employers have paid into that program. I really worry that when the government gets its hands on something like that, it is going to spend it, as it does with everything else.

I also want to highlight some of the frivolous spending I still see happening. It is happening with consultants. Even though the government said it was going to try to spend less, it is spending more. The government is still spending money on what I would call frivolous items, such as $150 million for gender awareness in other countries, $150 million to UNRWA that has been proven to be helping Hamas build tunnels and $500 million for the European Space Centre, 50% of which is owned by Brookfield. We are seeing lots of good deals for Brookfield and not too many good deals for Canadians.

With that said, here are some things I wish were in the budget. The first is something for seniors. In my riding, that is over half the population. We have an aging population in our country, but there is just a reannouncement of the new horizons program. How about an increase to OAS and GIS?

How about something for young people? There was just a small amount for training, after the government cancelled the apprenticeship program. We need more people in the trades.

I wish the government had actually put something in the budget to build houses and to buy the F-35s, as well as money for jails for all the criminals, including repeat offenders and violent people out on the streets.

I will wrap up by talking about spending less to invest more. The government is actually spending more. Public sector spending is up, and the cost of consultants is up. We know this is going to cause the cost of everything to go up. The government should instead be focusing on creating a competitive environment, on R and D, on reducing regulations, on getting certainty so investors will come invest here in Canada, and on getting out of the way. The government says it is going to build at rates never before seen, but sadly we have seen zero before. We do not need to see it again.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Conservative argument around deficit spending and inflation was completely proven wrong when they said the same thing about the carbon tax. They said that the carbon tax was adding to inflation. The parliamentary secretary and I listened to this for years in the House. Then we got rid of the carbon tax, and inflation did not suddenly get impacted by this.

Notwithstanding that whole issue, the reality is this: What the member is saying is just not correct. I know we both went to the same university. She studied engineering. I studied economics. Take it from the person who studied economics that her rationale for fuelling inflation with deficit spending, which might work in theory in an isolated economy, does not apply in the same way when we have open borders for trade. The reality is that there is so much more that impacts an economy and inflationary pressures.

Notwithstanding the fact that this does not play into the Conservative narrative we heard here for years, can the member explain to me how global economies and free trade affect inflationary pressures the same way she is telling me deficit spending affects inflationary pressures?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly recall the member opposite mocking this side of the House for 10 years on the carbon tax. Then we noticed, during the election, the price of gasoline start to fall. What did the Liberals do afterwards? They returned and put an industrial carbon tax in place, the supposed new fuel standard that increased the cost of gasoline 17% and continues to increase the amount needed to grow the food, move the food and sell the food, so they are driving inflation.

If we look at this in comparison with our neighbours to the south, food prices here are going up 40% faster than those in the U.S. because of the government's policies.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about the government's frivolous budget spending at a time when Canadians are paying a lot more for food and other consumer goods because of inflation.

One of those frivolous expenses is the carbon capture, utilization and storage investment tax credit. Alberta's major oil companies made record profits from 2022 to 2024, and 60% of those profits went to shareholders in the United States. Now, we are going to pay to produce net-zero oil, which is a total pipe dream.

Would my colleague go so far as to say that it is foolish to continue to financially support the greedy oil and gas industry in the budget?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question.

I do not support the Pathways Alliance project, because I think that all of the companies involved are simply looking to become very wealthy, and Brookfield is one of them. I do not believe that this will reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

We need to build a pipeline, and we need to sell our oil around the world. That is the right response.

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

Madam Speaker, I think my hon. colleague mentioned this in her speech, and I am wondering if she can clarify it a little more: Part 5, division 3 of this bill talks about $1.5 billion for the Canada Lands Company.

I thought this was a company that was supposed to sell off federal assets. Why are we giving it money to do that?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Madam Speaker, the government's promise was that it was going to sell off land so it could build the affordable housing we are missing because of massive immigration that did not match the supply of housing.

Here we go. We see, again, that the government is giving money. Who is getting rich? That is always the question with the Liberals. It is corruption. It is Brookfield. The Prime Minister is getting rich.

I am not certain exactly which Liberal insider is getting rich on this one.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see you in the chair, but I am not so pleased to speak to Bill C-15. It will come as no surprise to anyone when I say that, unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C‑15. We are making an effort to ask for changes, compromises and things for Quebec, but we are getting very few answers.

Our key demands were left out of the budget entirely. I will get back to that at the end of my speech if I have any time left. I will just remind members that we asked the government to reimburse Quebeckers for the money that was given to the other provinces for the carbon tax, and we also asked for an increase in old age security starting at age 65. The government could have made an effort to address these two demands at least. There is also the issue of transfers. Perhaps I will get back to that later.

Bill C‑15 is a colossal bill. It is 650 pages long, contains 80 measures and amends 49 acts in a whole host of areas. I read it again yesterday evening, point by point. It is fortunate that there was a great football match on, because some sections of the bill were putting me to sleep.

This is a big bill. The problem with big bills is that we often have to sift through the document to find out if the government has slipped something in. The big surprise this year comes around page 300 or so. I will get back to that later. I hope there are people tuning in who will hear this and realize what the government is doing. The government is giving just about any minister the authority to exempt projects from the application of just about any legislation for as long as the minister wishes. All the minister has to say is that doing so will encourage innovation.

We do want to be productive and efficient, but the government needs to be careful. The only act that the minister cannot grant an exemption for is the Criminal Code. However, there are many other acts. We are concerned about the environment, among other things. It will come as no surprise when I say that we are now pretty much alone on that. Fortunately, our member from Repentigny has taken over from Ms. Pauzé, whose name I can mention in the House today because she is no longer here. She proudly carried the torch high for many years. I wish to send her my regards.

In terms of the environment, things really are not heading in the right direction. The government is extending the tax credits for carbon capture. It is giving more money to the oil and gas industry. Carbon capture is an unproven technology. It has been tried in other places and it does not work. This will be a fiasco. The government knows this but it is plowing ahead anyway, because this is a government that is all about image. The government members give nice speeches. They know it will not work, but it is no big deal. They announce they are going to do it because it is good for the environment. In two, three, four or five years, people are going to realize that it does not work, but that is okay, because the government can score political points with it right now. That is the sad state of politics today.

Small nuclear power plants are now included in the clean energy tax credit. That is unbelievable. The government has decided that nuclear energy is clean energy. We understand that some countries rely on it, because they do not have enough land or do not have other sources of energy. However, it cannot be said that nuclear energy does not produce waste. The cherry on top is that the waste from these small nuclear power plants will be dumped at Chalk River, on the banks of the Ottawa River, which provides drinking water for the vast majority of Quebeckers. This worries us.

In fact, my colleague from Repentigny is meeting with local residents today about this issue. We are trying to wake up the government and the Conservative opposition regarding this issue. If an incident occurs someday and Quebeckers' drinking water becomes contaminated, who is going to pay, and who is going to live with the consequences for decades? It will be us. This is very serious.

The government decided to have more nuclear energy, because it decided that it is clean energy. That is absurd. Furthermore, the tax credits initially intended for the manufacturing sector now include liquefied natural gas conversion. To put it briefly, the goal is production. “Drill, baby, drill” is a well-known phrase that is being repeated more and more in Parliament. It is appalling.

The government is also going to make the media crisis worse by getting rid of the digital services tax for good. That is another serious negative consideration. I will get back to that in more detail if I have more time, but it is quite surreal to see the current government capitulating to the U.S. government on everything. It capitulated on every issue and got nothing in return. It gave and gave and gave because well, we are nice and polite and so we give. However, there comes a time when we must stand firm, no matter how big our neighbour is. By getting rid of the digital services tax, the government is forgoing $7.2 billion over five years. That is a lot of money for our newsrooms. It is a lot of money for media companies like TVA, which laid off a lot of workers recently.

We asked about this issue here in the House. I was there, so I can attest to that. The former minister, who has now left, was answering our questions. That former minister quit because he is also outraged by what this government is doing in terms of the environment. At least we are starting to attract followers from other political parties.

However, when we ask questions about the media, the government says CBC/Radio-Canada got money. The government is telling us the media model it wants in Quebec and Canada is a state monopoly. There is no support for private and independent media.

What can I say about regional news? It is crazy that it is not getting any help. The government needs to do something to support these people. We are living in an era when technology is evolving, artificial intelligence is moving at lightning speed, and fake news is becoming easier to produce and is circulating more and more quickly. While all this is happening, the government is telling private media they must sort out their own problems and that if they are not profitable, they should just close down.

Perhaps it suits the government to have an uninformed population. That way, no one will go digging through this enormous bill to find page 300. Hiding somewhere near the middle of the bill is a measure which, as I mentioned a bit earlier, allows any minister to suspend any law for any period of time he or she chooses. The text of the bill even states that it is the minister who decides on the period of time. I was quite surprised to see this in the bill, and I had to read this passage a second time to be sure I had read it correctly.

That is not all. The stated goal is to encourage innovation. If an experiment is under way, the application of a law can be suspended. However, when the experiment is finished, the exemption can be maintained. It is no big deal. Any excuse can be made to cancel laws, and no one knows when they will be reinstated. That is outrageous. I would even use the word “dangerous” to describe this government. I think that in five or 10 years, people are going to look at the outcomes of this government's policies and they are going to realize that democracy has taken a big step backwards. Bills C‑5 and C‑15 are perfect examples. Democracy will have declined and we will be stuck with these changes.

The people most in need have been completely left out. Yesterday, I spoke about tax cuts. Everyone is making nice speeches about this. They say they are cutting taxes, it is going to be good and it is going to be great, when in reality we are talking about $4 a month. The least well off, including disability benefit recipients, are going to see an increase in their tax burden. We are supposed to applaud this and be happy about it.

Here is a scoop for everyone: We are not going to applaud. In a 650-page document, there might be a few worthwhile measures. I hope the Liberals found one or two that might be good, such as the eligible credits for critical minerals, which could be beneficial for Quebec, or things like that. We are going to watch to see what might be good. As for the rest and what comes next, we are going to work conscientiously. However, I can say that when the time comes to vote, we are going to vote against Bill C‑15.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I must admit that I missed part of it. Still, I was a bit surprised that I did not hear him talk about the measures in the budget for the agriculture and agri-food sector, given that I know that my hon. colleague represents a rural riding in Quebec that has a lot of farmers.

The budget includes $120 million to enhance business risk management programs, as well as an additional $75 million for the AgriMarketing program, which is crucial in helping us export Quebec and Canadian products around the world. There are also millions of dollars in investments for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to promote free trade in general.

Why is my colleague going to vote against measures that are important for Canadian and Quebec farmers, including those in his riding?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Kings—Hants, with whom I enjoy speaking every day. A budget is a complex set of measures. Yes, this budget contains a few minor measures that may be good for agriculture, and I have already applauded them.

However, I would invite my colleague to reread his budget, especially the part where the government announces funding for the AgriStability program. When we look carefully at the budget lines, we that they include investments of $8 million or $23 million. I would have to double-check the exact amount. Then on the next line, we see the exact same amount being deducted because the government is taking the money from inside the system.

The government is making nice announcements and promises, but Canada, a G7 country, is still dedicating less than 1% of its budget to support agriculture. Meanwhile, it is planning to invest 5% in defence. We agree with putting money toward defence, but only to a certain point. Can we eat before we start fighting? Can we ensure that we are self-sufficient when it comes to food?

There is a lot of work to be done. The government could make the advance payments program permanent by setting a limit of $350,000. I would like to hear the government talk about permanent measures, but instead it is implementing temporary measures. Do members know why? It is because the government likes it when farmers have to come and beg to have the measures renewed every year. That makes the government feel powerful. If the government really wanted to help people, it would implement permanent measures.

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

Madam Speaker, there is finally something that I and the Bloc member agree on: this ridiculous idea of pumping air into the ground, or the $16-billion landfill, as I call it.

I am wondering if the hon. member understands that there is probably a Brookfield connection to this pipeline.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased that we agree on something, and I invite my colleague to make the most of this occasion. Let us put this date on the calendar. We will be more inclined to like each other the next time we talk.

As to the use of tax havens, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, among others, is looking into that, and the more they dig, the more suspicious the Prime Minister's investments look. Naturally, when the government adopts measures and eliminates taxes for companies that benefit the individual in the position of prime minister, that raises very serious questions.

That will go down on the record I was talking about earlier. In five or 10 years, people will look at what this government did. They will say that it was just not right and that it must never happen again.

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

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed in the Bloc's approach to the budget implementation bill. Its members are not going to be voting in favour of it and have made that very clear. There are many things in the budget implementation bill that would be of benefit to the people of Quebec and, indeed, all of Canada.

I wonder if the member could reflect on many of the initiatives that are taking place, such as the Port of Churchill, investments for seniors and so forth. These are in the budget implementation bill the Bloc members are voting against. Does the member have any remorse over wanting to prevent residents of Quebec from receiving benefits?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no regrets, and the reason I say that is because I attended a FADOQ event over the weekend and people told me not to abandon them. They know that the government has not yet agreed to increase OAS for seniors aged 65 and over, as demanded by the Bloc Québécois, so they are asking us not to abandon them. They feel as though everyone else is abandoning them. That is what seniors in my riding are telling me.

I would not want my colleague to take this personally because I like him, but when he is disappointed, it usually means that I am doing my job well. It means that I am defending the right things. The Bloc Québécois will continue to defend Quebec's interests as well as environmental issues. My colleague can talk about the budget and the new measures all he wants, but he knows what I am talking about. He just lost his heritage minister, who is an environmentalist, so he knows.

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties. If you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House concur in the procedure and House affairs committee report tabled earlier this day.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving of the motion will please say nay.

There being no dissenting voice, it is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been discussions among the parties. I believe that, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to revert back to tabling committee reports.

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

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving of the motion will please say nay.