Debates of Dec. 2nd, 2025

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

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

Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of conversations recently with some folks back home. We have a helicopter training facility there, as well as some veterans. Folks have said that the top-up on salary is appreciated, but their concern is about the cuts and what impact those could have on veterans' services.

Again, the idea of investing in our military is a very sound one, but there are structural, fundamental issues in the way we go about procuring things in this government and in this country, particularly when it comes to our armed forces. We need to be very mindful, not only of finding ways to improve outcomes, but also, in every way and every day, supporting and thanking those who served in uniform to protect our country.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to stand and give my perspective on why I personally, and a number of my colleagues, voted against the budget. The Prime Minister advised Justin Trudeau and his ongoing Liberal government to construct and keep the roadblocks and red tape that have decimated Canada's ability to compete for investment. As an example, Nutrien's recent announcement is a huge blow to Saskatchewan's export of the best potash in the world. My Prince Albert colleague summed it up: “Nutrien didn't pick the U.S. because they wanted to. They picked the U.S. because Canada made it too slow...too expensive...and too unpredictable to build here. The U.S. made it easy. That's the whole story.”

Canada's west coast has structural bottlenecks. Vancouver's north shore depends on one rail bridge, a major choke point. Longview already has ready rail, a redeveloped berth and immediate expansion capacity. Nutrien ran 30 criteria. It compared rail rates, freight costs, construction costs and regulatory risk. Longview, Washington, outperformed every Canadian port.

Canada's permitting system kills projects. B.C. port approval takes 5 years to 10 years with open-ended requirements. ln the U.S., the process runs on fixed timelines and is measured in months. Transportation now costs more than mining. Industry analysis shows shipping is the largest cost in potash.

Nutrien built where logistics are cheaper and faster, and that is not in Canada. Labour, carbon policy and regulation all push investment south. The U.S. offers predictable labour, lower build costs and no $170 per tonne industrial carbon tax. Investors follow certainty, and Canada does not offer it under the current government. Governments reacted after the decision; Ottawa and B.C. said they were disappointed after Nutrien picked Longview, while Saskatchewan reminded everyone that this is the second potash terminal lost since 2016, because B.C.'s system is too slow and the government has not been acting.

The bottom line is that Nutrien did not abandon Canada. Liberal policies pushed the investment out, and the U.S. simply opened the door. If we cannot even secure a port for the resources we dominate globally, what else are we going to lose?

Bill C-5 gives full exception to these regulations for nation-building projects only, so the Prime Minister has no excuse for not getting a pipeline built from Alberta to the B.C. northwest coast, even while these same laws still cause other potential private investment and nation-building opportunities to remain out of reach as U.S. tariffs continue to cause job losses. Algoma Steel is an example, with 1,000 workers this week. However, the PM has made it clear he will not do his job to squelch the option of a veto, and thus signals failure to potential proponents wanting to build a pipeline.

The Prime Minister also continued to green-light immigration, compounding the shortage in affordable homes, access to health care, and jobs for immigrants who came to Canada the right way to work hard to become productive citizens, and especially for young Canadians who are told they will never have the opportunity to own their own home or save for their own future.

A minimal tax cut for 20 million Canadians does not begin to offset the impact of inflation on the higher cost of essentials, let alone the interest payments on our debt. Canadian families will be out $5,000 in the trade-off this year. This minuscule tax cut gives the government a misleading talking point that only puts a pinky band-aid on a huge wound, the wound of the loss of purchasing power and the burden of more hidden taxes the government tells Canadians to believe are only in their heads, such as the industrial carbon tax, the 17¢ per litre fuel standard tax, the $1-billion food packaging tax and the inflation tax created by too much imaginary money with too few goods to buy.

The budget fails to cut taxes on work, homebuilding, investment and energy, by not reducing personal income tax for low-income workers, not incentivizing investment in Canada by reducing the capital gains tax and not cutting homebuilding taxes, such as permits and GST, on all new home builds. lt fails to stop the inflation tax by unlocking more resource development and revenue. The government should be cutting wasteful spending on bureaucracy, consultants, corporate welfare, foreign aid and false refugee claimants.

Programs that fall short for the people who were assured assistance are temporary, piecemeal handouts from a government that should be unleashing our economy and restoring affordability rather than growing the number of Canadians who cannot afford basic essentials. It is choosing to give these supports, as it calls them, which are simply stopgaps that do not provide long term independence and prosperity for Canadians.

Over and over again the government says it is investing in Canadians, when what it is doing is creating the issues that are making their lives very difficult and then providing interim emergency supports that do not bring the wealth to this country that Canadians need and want in order to be self-sufficient. The Liberal government has created the very crisis circumstances that it is falsely claiming it is fixing.

The Canadian Dental Association had its Days on the Hill this past week and exposed some issues with the Canadian dental care program that are causing confusion and disappointment for patients and doctors, including misleading deadlines. One lady, an elderly senior, got dentures. They were supposed to be 100% covered. She renewed the program at the beginning of the month and still had 30 days to make a claim, but because she renewed when it said to, the amount she was reimbursed was only $40. What happens then?

The government made unexpected adjustments to the awards and is denying certain claims without transparency. Dentists are carrying outstanding billings for the people who cannot afford to pay up front what they thought they would have covered. There are nine million Canadians enrolled in the program, and they are finding out the hard way that there are issues with it.

The federal government should get out of the way of investment and ensure, and this is really important, that Canadian workers build national infrastructure projects directly, without Brookfield and other players' getting subsidies from our tax dollars to hire Canadians in our own country. Talk about fleecing Canadian taxpayers.

Duff Conacher from Democracy Watch warned that our Prime Minister could personally profit from massive federal infrastructure spending tied to his substantial investments, including but not limited to Brookfield. This is something that causes me to look at the government and say that there is no way it should have the privilege to bring forward any budgets in the future that cause this kind of self-sufficiency for people who are making money at the expense of Canadians.

We know that there are 1,900 Brookfield assets that the Prime Minister did not submit to his ethics screen. There are many, but here are at least three major Liberal projects in Canada's 2025 budget involving Brookfield. The Build Canada Homes initiative ties $36 billion to Brookfield for modular housing. This is housing that the PM foreshadowed on April 8, 2025, over seven months ago, as the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, saying, “Prefabricated and modular housing are the [way of the] future.”

A 19-year-old first-time voter shared with me that he and his friends were excited to vote for the leader of the official opposition to become the next prime minister. Later, texting with his friends, he told me that they were changing their minds. I asked him to ask them why. They said that during the election campaign, the Prime Minister told young Canadians to their face that the Liberals would build homes they can afford.

I told him to explain to his friends that this is called an open-ended sentence, which lets them finish the thought with what they think it is defining. I asked him to ask them whether what they heard was that the government will build homes they can afford to rent, or homes they can afford to buy. Eyes grew wide, and brows furrowed. They thought he was going to fix things so they could afford to buy a home. Who is going to have the investment in their homes? Will it be young Canadians or Brookfield and the Prime Minister?

Brookfield has many interests and contracts in Liberal nation-building projects, generating billions in stock profit. This arrangement is about conflict of interest, especially given the PM's significant financial holdings in Brookfield. Canadians deserve to know all the details of how the Prime Minister is using his office to put Brookfield and personal profits ahead of Canadians' trust. The premise of this budget is to limit Canadians' options for their futures, while he and his friends continue to profit while bleeding our country dry.

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

Mr. Speaker, we understand the scene: personal attacks, character assassination and misinformation.

It is interesting. The member posed the previous question, with regard to veterans. The Conservatives try to give the impression that the government is cutting back $4 billion. What they do not tell us is that this is $4 billion in savings, because we used to pay $8 a gram for medical marijuana but it is now being reduced to $6 a gram. Only the Conservatives would argue that we should continue to pay more than what the market is providing for.

That is where the $4 billion is, but the Conservatives try to give the impression that we are cutting back on veterans. The Conservatives know this is not true. A real cut was when their leader cut and closed nine Veterans Affairs offices across Canada.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will gladly send over an article that describes exactly where that $4 billion is being cut. A portion of it is in regard to cannabis, but I guarantee that it is far from accounting for the total amount of $4 billion.

Let us talk about the offices that were closed. They were closed on the recommendation of the bureaucrats, who said that they were not being used extensively. Did we shut down the services? No. They were moved to other places. In Regina, in my riding, services were moved to the service centre in one of the malls. When they were moved back downtown, veterans had to go up four floors in a building where there was bulletproof glass and where it was hard to park. They said to me, “Why did they do that, Cathay? We loved going to the mall where we could get our mail, have coffee, get our groceries and go to Veterans Affairs.”

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

Mr. Speaker, in the budget, the Liberals talked about investment in the future. There is an operating budget and an investment budget. The PBO, whom the Liberals do not like, said that $90 billion of the investment budget should actually be in the operating budget. The deficit is actually skyrocketing past $78 billion to $90 billion. The PBO said that.

What does my colleague think about the misinformation coming from the Liberals about what investment actually looks like, when that $90 billion should be in the operating budget and not in the investment budget?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious the government does not care about telling Canadians about the true state of our democracy and about the true state of our economy.

In addition to that, it appears that the Liberals are very intentional in misleading Canadians. That is why we need to remove the current government, so that Canadians can have a prime minister who truly is a servant of the people.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let us do another fact check. Earlier a member of the Conservative Party indicated that he had heard the government was going to be closing down the RCMP Depot. I have heard nothing of that nature. I am wondering if the member would be able to provide any evidence whatsoever that the Conservative Party has that says the RCMP Depot in Regina will be closing down.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, definitely that was something that was being mused about.

Whenever Canadians get upset, and I must say that in my province they have expressed themselves well throughout the whole decade I have been here, the Liberal government tries to drop little things in as a possibility but then has to reverse its stance, as with Remembrance Day wreaths and with chaplains' being able to pray at Legion Remembrance Day services.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question will be short and simple. My colleague talked a lot about Brookfield. How is it ethically dangerous and concerning for a prime minister to put his personal interests ahead of the interests of his fellow Canadians?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the problem I have been pretty much entirely focused on in my concerns around this budget. When we have a Prime Minister who blatantly puts his money in offshore accounts and who blatantly refuses to admit that there are 1,900 different organizations that he is profiting from, we know that the Prime Minister does not have the best interests of Canadians at heart.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, and to give a voice to Brampton West residents and all Canadians who feel that the government has forgotten them. Families are falling behind, seniors are struggling and young Canadians' dreams of owning a home have been stolen by Liberal mismanagement.

The Liberal government is now in its 10th year of driving our country deeper into debt and deeper into a housing crisis and an affordability crisis not seen in generations. Bill C-15, the first implementation act of the 2025 budget, would do nothing to change course; it is more spending, taxes and bureaucracy, and fewer results. The budget does not put Canadians first; it puts consultants, insiders and Brookfield first, everyone except Canadian families.

In Brampton West and in Peel, I see the impacts every day. Young families in my communities are stretched to the limit, housing costs are crushing and rents keep going up. Many people in Peel who once dreamed of home ownership now tell me the dream feels out of reach or too expensive to risk. Wages are not keeping pace; food bank use is at an all-time high; crime, extortion and shootings are all rising; small businesses are suffocated by taxes and red tape; and young people are losing hope.

Businesses in Brampton, especially small ones, are under pressure. They do not need more regulation or government programs; they need stability and certainty in order to invest, hire and grow. The budget does absolutely nothing to fix it. It is not a growth plan; it is a trap for our future, especially for young Canadians. Brampton residents deserve a government that works for them, not against them.

The budget is built on the same fantasy that has guided the Liberals since 2015: the belief that they can spend endlessly without consequences, but Canadians know the consequences all too well. The Liberals promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio; they raised it. They promised to spend less; they added another $90 billion, which will cost every family $5,400. The Prime Minister is running a $78.3-billion deficit, not to build homes, lower costs and help families but to cover up nine years of economic failure. It is not a budget; it is a warning, a flashing red light on the dashboard of the Canadian economy.

Canada's national debt is now over $1.3 trillion. Debt servicing costs are higher than the federal government's total health transfers to the provinces; we pay more to service the debt than we spend on the health care Canadians rely on. Debt servicing in 2025-26 will reach $55.6 billion, which is more than the Canada health transfer. This is fiscal negligence, economic recklessness and generational theft.

Who pays for it? It is not the ministers who make the decisions or the bureaucrats who add the lines. The next generation pays for it: students, young families and workers in Brampton and right across the country. That is the Liberal legacy, and Bill C-15 would cement it.

I represent Brampton West, a young and diverse community full of hard-working families, seniors, new Canadians and small businesses. These residents are not asking for handouts; they are asking for fairness, stability and a chance to get ahead. However, today mortgage renewals are up; grocery prices are up 25% since 2019; car insurance and gas costs are punishing working families; food bank usage is breaking records in Peel region, which has the highest usage in Ontario; families are juggling multiple jobs to keep a roof over their head; and young Canadians are losing hope that home ownership will ever be possible.

Nonetheless, Bill C-15 contains no real plan to lower inflation, taxes or the cost of living; it is just more spending, photo ops and bureaucracy.

Nowhere is the government's failure clearer than in housing. The Liberals promised to make housing affordable again and, instead, they doubled housing costs, reduced housing starts and plunged the country into the worst housing crisis in our history. Now they want Canadians to believe the Prime Minister's so-called plan will fix it when the budget itself proves the opposite.

The Prime Minister promised to build “at a speed and scale not seen in generations”, but what did he deliver? His fourth housing bureaucracy is funded at only half the promised amount. He refused to cut development charges despite promising to cut them in half immediately. His appointed housing officials previously increased development charges by 700% and, according to the Building Industry and Land Development Association, this plan will destroy 100,000 jobs in construction.

Even housing experts were shocked. Mike Moffatt of the Missing Middle Initiative said, “I went into the budget lockup expecting to be disappointed, but I had inadequately prepared myself for how disappointed I would be.” The Large Urban Centre Alliance said, “This budget relies on backward-looking data that provides false reassurances”. When someone's own experts, economists and builders reject one's plan, one does not have a plan.

In Brampton and Peel Region, housing prices have more than doubled since 2015. Young families are living in basements because starter homes are out of reach. Newcomers are waiting years just to find affordable rental units. This is not a housing market; it is a crisis created by Liberal policies with excessive money printing, uncontrolled demand pressures and endless red tape. Bill C-15 continues that same failed approach.

Let me be clear. Immigration is a strength for Canada, but it must be planned, managed and supported with housing, infrastructure and transit investments. Under the government, immigration targets were increased dramatically without matching increases in housing supply, without matching investments in infrastructure and without supporting municipalities like Brampton, one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada. Bill C-15 ignores this reality. It offers no plan for infrastructure, no plan for transit and no plan for municipal support, just more bureaucracy and more promises.

Conservatives have a real plan to bring affordability and home ownership back to Canadians: cut the GST on all new homes under $1.3 million, saving families up to $65,000 and unleashing new building across the country; tie federal infrastructure dollars to homebuilding, with municipalities having to permit at least 15% more homes each year to receive federal funding; cut development charges by 50%, which the Liberals promised in the last election and failed to deliver; end capital gains tax on reinvestments into new housing in Canada, unlocking billions of dollars in private sector investment to accelerate building; and bring home lower taxes, lower inflation and balanced budgets. Then Canadians could afford the essentials again.

Bill C-15 asks Canadians to trust the same government that created the affordability crisis, the housing crisis and the debt crisis. It asks Canadians to trust the same failed policies, the same empty promises and the same out-of-touch leadership that made life unaffordable. However, Canadians are smarter than that. They know this budget will not build homes, not lower prices and not fix the economy. Canadians deserve a government that respects their money, supports their dreams and builds homes, not bureaucracy.

Bill C-15 is not a budget that would help Canadians. It is a budget that would protect Liberal political survival, not Canadian economic survival. Canadians deserve better. Brampton deserves better. Young families deserve better. Seniors deserve better. They deserve a government that will restore hope, home ownership, affordability and common sense to this country.

Conservatives will bring affordability, accountability and more opportunity. We will bring home the Canadian dream.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about housing, and we agree that housing is an issue. That is the reason the new Prime Minister, along with 60 Liberal members of Parliament, were elected just months ago. We made a commitment to build housing. We are working with municipalities and the provinces. We have created the programs to see a generational investment in housing that is going to double the number of houses being constructed. Let us contrast that to when the leader of the Conservative Party was the minister of housing and built six houses. I do not know where those six houses are, but apparently he built six of them.

How can the member believe that the Conservative policy, which I would suggest is nothing but a dud, would do anything to help the affordability of housing when we have a Prime Minister and a government to committed to increasing the housing supply?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about generational investment. I mentioned in my speech that it is generational theft. It is a generational amortization of our families and of our young kids, those who would pay for the debt the Liberals will create.

On the matter of housing, I am so happy to hear that the member agrees. However, he is unable to identify the problem, which needs to be dealt with in an effective manner so that housing prices can be controlled and people who dream of it can get the homes they want.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague briefly touched on the issue of health care. The Bloc Québécois had called for an increase in health transfers to give more resources to the health care system in Quebec and the provinces that really need them.

Just this morning at the Standing Committee on Health as part of our study on antimicrobials, a witness wrapped up his presentation by saying that more resources are needed, which means more health transfers. We were asking for $11.6 billion over five years.

What does my colleague think?

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that Canadians have to rely on health care and today it is a reality that our debt service is much more than the health care transfers to the provinces. We want to see a government that is looking into the specifics and doing what is needed so we can give a better life to Canadians everywhere across the country.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Brampton West touched upon something that I know he is very passionate about, and that is the issue of extortion. Under the Liberal government's soft-on-crime policies, the rate of extortion has exploded 330%. It is because criminals today have more rights than the victims do because of those soft-on-crime policies. I wonder if the member could describe a bit more what Brampton residents are saying about the soft-on-crime Liberal policies and extortions.

[Amarjeet Gill, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful question. My community in Brampton is really suffering through extortion, shootings and criminal activities. Not a day passes that I do not hear from the people of Brampton that somebody got shot or someone got an extortion call. Recently, I would like to mention, I got a call from a resident who said he had received a call for $1 million in extortion money. This is unacceptable in this country.

The soft-on-crime Liberal policies have created this mess, and we are suggesting Bill C-242, which would address all the issues. It is called jail not bail. I will ask all the members in Parliament to support this bill so that we can control crime in Brampton and across the country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before we resume debate, I have to inform the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola that he will be interrupted by S. O. 31 statements and question period. He will be able to continue after question period.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was having such a good day until you told me I would be interrupted for question period, but democracy cannot wait.

It is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola. Being in the House, I see many people in the gallery. I am not allowed to point out the firefighters and fire chiefs who may be present, so I just thank them for being present in Ottawa. This includes my own fire chief, though I would not be able to say whether I see him. I met with Mr. Ken Uzeloc earlier. Whether Chief Uzeloc is watching or not, I thank him and I thank all of the fire chiefs who bravely keep us safe.

Today, we are talking about the budget implementation act, Bill C-15. If someone were to ask how the budget implementation act works as opposed to the budget, I would say the budget is a forecast but then we have to actually implement it. Interestingly enough, I was at the SECU committee, which is colloquially called the public safety committee. There, we were talking about CBSA officers because the government promised 1,000 new CBSA officers in April. They said elbows up and that they were going to get them.

I have asked many times where those officers are. Have the Liberals hired any of them? The answer is always no. Today, we heard 57 officers were hired. I asked how many of those 57 officers were hired pursuant to the promise and I was told to look at the budget. The budget implementation act has not passed, so if the money is earmarked for those officers and the government has not brought the spending authority forward, I am not sure if any of them have. It is obviously something to look at. Generally, when we have the president of the CBSA or the commissioner of corrections come to committee, we expect them to know their numbers, so I was disappointed at that.

I was also disappointed when the Prime Minister told young people they would have to make sacrifices. I have children. They are still young; they are not adults yet. I worry about their futures. I still remember when I bought my first house and thought about how far stretched I would be for that house. My wife and I had both just graduated law school. We were making first-year lawyer incomes. A lot of people do not realize the income is not as high as one might expect. We were making money sufficient to pay our bills and we bought our first house in 2008. That house is now double the price it once was as an entry-level home.

When the Prime Minister talks about young people making sacrifices, it is very easy for somebody who is fortunate enough to be an MP, to be very wealthy or to be even marginally wealthy to say they have to sacrifice. It reminds me of when the former prime minister, Justin Trudeau, said veterans were asking for more than we could give. It was awful. We need to be taking care of the people who take care of us. It is not lost on me that we have first responders here, yet we send our money everywhere but to the people on the ground.

Where are the houses? I was stopped in the airport two days ago by people in my riding of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola who talked about how low housing starts are. If we listen to any of the ministers on the front benches, we would want to do cartwheels based on how great the economy is, but I do not listen to the people on the front benches. I listen to people in my riding. If we want to know whether something is working, we talk to the people on the ground. Frankly, I think I can speak for my Conservative colleagues when I say we have had enough of people in ivory towers telling us that we have never had it so good. People in my riding are lined up at the food bank.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister said that our leader lives in an ivory tower.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Excuse me. We are in debate, so we have one person speaking at a time. I understand there can be heckling from time to time, which is a normal part of House affairs, but that was a bit more than a heckle and was entering into debate.

We will let the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola continue.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if we ever had to have an example of someone in an ivory tower, it is the minister from northern Saskatchewan here, who will not even listen to what my constituents are telling me.

The Liberals say that Canadians have never had it so good. I would say that young people have never had it be so challenging. We have people who do not have a house.

My parents came to Canada without two pennies to rub together. Now their son is a member of Parliament. They lived the Canadian dream. Hard work paid off for them, but I do not see that dream being fulfilled. In fact, I see that dream being the opposite for new Canadians and for young people, with the Prime Minister telling us that people have to make more sacrifices.

I am going to wait here for question period, because we are going to probably hear, since we hear it so often, that Canada has the lowest debt to GDP in the G7.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member from northern Saskatchewan said, “Hear, hear!” I wonder if that member will stand up, give a speech and talk about the provincial debt, the federal debt and whether the provincial debt and the federal debt, if combined—