Debates of Dec. 4th, 2025

Oral Questions

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that point of order. The leader of the Bloc Québécois himself is saying that federal funding for culture in Quebec is being used to silence separatists. If he wants to bring those topics to the House, he has to take responsibility. The Bloc Québécois has to take responsibility so that the matter can be debated.

Members of the Bloc Québécois are suffering from the same disease as the Conservatives, that is, repeating questions without even thinking them through. We will always be here to provide answers to relevant questions.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will obviously reflect on this point of order.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I spoke on this same point of order last week to ask you to allow one of our members to continue asking his question, because he had 15 seconds left in his time and he was about to get to his question on government business. I think that my Bloc Québécois colleague's argument is entirely justified.

However, I find the gratuitous attack just launched by the government House leader, which is not relevant to the point of order, to be completely unwarranted. Mr. Speaker, you allowed him to issue this unwarranted attack that was completely out of context. We have the right to ask our questions. That is our right. We represent our constituents, so it is not up to the government House leader to decide what questions members of the official opposition or any other member of the House, for that matter, can ask.

I will wait to give my other comments on my colleague's point of order later.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I will consider everything that has been said and come back to the House with a ruling on this point of order.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we know today that Canadians are concerned about rising food prices after 10 years of Liberal governance, but they do not see the chaos that is happening right here in the House of Commons, and in parliamentary committees in particular. Ministers are not showing up. Committees are cancelled at the last minute. We saw it again today—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is the member talking about the Thursday question?

We are not quite there yet. I have a decision to read first.

Quoting from Documents—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The Chair would like to take a moment to come back to the House on a point of order raised yesterday by the member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna concerning whether quoting from a document or book during an intervention in the House violates our rule against using props during debate.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, section 13.26, notes:

Props of any kind have always been found to be unacceptable in the chamber, especially when they cause disorder.

The same section also states the following: Moreover, Speakers have consistently ruled that visual displays used by members to illustrate their remarks or emphasize their positions are out of order.... For example, members may hold notes in their hands, but they will be interrupted and reprimanded by the Speaker if they use papers, documents or other printed material to illustrate their remarks. Printed material that has been ruled out of order includes advertisements, newspapers, books, business cards and money.

However, regarding the use of books, members are generally allowed to quote from them in support of their arguments, including when they rise on a point of order to inform the Speaker of a potential breach of the rules or practices of the House. Conversely, waving a book around, pointing to it or using it as a rhetorical device to bolster a statement is not acceptable.

The member for Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna also indicated in his point of order that members should be allowed to quote from a book when needed in the course of debate. The Chair would fully concur with this assertion, and the Chair confirms that members are allowed to quote from books so long as the same are not used to emphasize their position.

We can now proceed with the Thursday question.

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for that thorough response to the point of order raised yesterday.

Just before that point of order was raised yesterday, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader also stood on a point of order, and you indicated that you would come back with a ruling on it if it was deemed necessary.

Does your lack of coming back to the House mean that you do not deem it to be necessary, or do you plan to do that at—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I deem it not to be necessary.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North raised the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was offside when he made a comment that alluded to the absence of the Prime Minister. I took a measure in response to that: The hon. Leader of the Opposition lost the question, so I consider the matter closed.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate that response. There was a lot of heckling going on at the time, when the member was trying to raise his point of order, so perhaps it did not get in there.

The member for Winnipeg North was trying to ask what the next step is. Will you just continue to take away questions? When somebody is weighing a cost-benefit analysis, they can decide it is okay to give away a question because the gain they get by posting it on social media is going to outweigh that cost, and he did post it.

Our question to you is, what is the next step you will take in this regard, so all members are aware ahead of time before you have to go down that road?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

We will have to wait and see. It is a hypothetical situation, but I do consider it a major offside and I will not be tolerating it going forward.

Business of the House

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, Canadians are very concerned about the cost of food. After 10 years under this Liberal government, people have seen the cost of food double. It now costs $340 per week compared to less than half that 10 years ago.

Meanwhile, people are not paying attention to what is happening on the Hill, but they should be. Why? Because the Liberal government is causing chaos in parliamentary committees. We have to discuss bills and advance democracy, but ministers are failing to show up and committee meetings are being cancelled at the last minute. This is the government playing political games. Another such incident happened just this morning. The meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was cancelled at the last minute. On the agenda was a clause-by-clause study of a regulation.

This week, my question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is this: Can he assure us that the government will stop playing anti-democratic political games and that committee meetings will be held as scheduled next week without last-minute cancellations? Can he also tell us what the plan is for tomorrow and next week in the House?

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I totally disagree with my esteemed colleague's version of the facts. It is precisely the outbursts of Conservative members, true to their leader's example, with their three-word slogans and determination to upend the work of the House and committees, that prompted the decision by the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore to cancel this morning's committee work.

I encourage all members to focus on the issues. We introduce bills of great importance to all Canadians. We ensure that these bills move forward and are debated in parliamentary committees and in the House. The least we should be able to expect is to be treated with decorum, not in a heated, even frenzied way by the official opposition. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to tell his members that their behaviour, shouting and agitation are a disservice to our democracy.

This afternoon, we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-15, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget. We hope the debate will end this afternoon.

Tomorrow, we will resume second reading debate on Bill C-10, an act respecting the commissioner for modern treaty implementation.

Next week, priority will be given to the third reading of Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure. Canadians know well that we have cut income taxes for every taxpayer. We made sure we got rid of the consumer carbon tax and the GST for first-time homebuyers. This is something the Conservatives said they wanted to do, but apparently not.

Also, there will be the second reading debate of Bill C-13, an act to implement the protocol on the accession of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, a very solid piece of economic policy. We would think the Conservatives would be interested in that, but apparently not.

We have the report stage and third reading of Bill C-12, which would strengthen Canada's immigration system and border, something the Conservatives talk about a lot. However, apparently they have nothing to say about this substantial and very important piece of legislation.

There is the second reading of Bill C-2, the strong borders act. It contains a concept known as lawful access, which police forces across this country have been asking for. They have been calling the offices of Conservative members to say that they know the Conservatives are divided on that. They know they have had some very difficult conversations in their caucus. The police want the ability to deal with extortion and child pornography. The Conservatives said they wanted action on this. This is action, but the Conservatives want to hold it up.

Finally, should Bill C-15, the very good budget bill before the House, not collapse today, it will also be considered next week.

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will not be supporting Bill C‑15, the budget implementation bill. We were very clear during the vote. The Bloc Québécois is the only party that stood firm. We had a number of reasons for rejecting this budget. Obviously, it is a big bill. It is 650 pages long, contains 80 legislative measures, and amends 49 laws. What we have is a mixed bag. The government can say that there are good projects in this bill, projects that the Bloc Québécois has been calling for. I am thinking of projects for the Magdalen Islands, Charlevoix and the Gaspé region, among others.

However, when we look at the bill as a whole, we see that the six priority demands of the Bloc Québécois were completely dismissed by the government. There were no negotiations, not with anyone. Still, we made it clear that the purpose of these demands was to represent and defend the interests of Quebec. These demands included support for seniors, support for young families in accessing home ownership, support on climate action and increases to health transfers. None of these measures are in this budget, which projects a deficit of almost $80 billion. In fact, our demands would have made it possible to generate significant benefits across Canada, beyond Quebec, which was of course our priority.

It gets worse. When we look at this budget, we see that fossil fuel companies, oil and gas companies, will be swimming in billions of dollars' worth of additional subsidies. The government decided to give even more money to oil and gas companies, which are already raking in record profits. The government will increase and extend tax credits for businesses, meaning that it will be paying to capture and sequester their carbon. Businesses should be the ones paying for their own pollution. They should be paying to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Quebeckers and taxpayers in general should not be subsidizing the companies that are largely responsible for climate change.

In this budget, the government is providing subsidies. Interestingly, the former heritage minister, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, met with the Green Party representative to promise action on the environment. He promised her that the tax credits would not enable oil companies to produce more oil just because they intend to capture carbon. The former heritage minister made that promise, and the budget said that tax credits for carbon capture and sequestration will not be used to allow oil companies to produce more oil.

However, last week, in an agreement between the Prime Minister and Alberta, the Liberals completely contradicted their budget. They betrayed the Green Party member, who voted with them, just to keep the oil and gas companies happy. Not only is the government giving money to oil companies, but we can see that the Prime Minister is unreliable when it comes to the environment. We cannot trust what he says because he goes back on his word.

Obviously, we have other concerns about this budget. From now on, nuclear companies will be able to receive money for small modular nuclear reactors through clean electricity tax credits. Those are credits for clean electricity, but nuclear energy produces nuclear waste. Just two hours from here, in Chalk River, nuclear waste is being stored next to the Ottawa River. There are 100 municipalities in Quebec that are opposed to that project. First nations are opposed to that project. This week, 85 groups from across Canada made a public statement about how it is not right that highly radioactive waste is being stored next to the Ottawa River. We are talking about carcinogens that stay radioactive for thousands of years.

If that is clean electricity, then I think people need to start asking some serious questions about the government's greenwashing. There are additional tax credits for nuclear power. The same applies to gas-fired power plants, as if it were clean to generate electricity from gas.

There is something else we discovered in this budget. We did not catch it at first because it is buried on page 300. The government has decided to allow major project developers to circumvent the law. We were not happy this spring when the government joined forces with the Conservatives to pass Bill C-5 under a gag order. That was a completely undemocratic move. We were concerned about Bill C-5 because it allowed the government to completely set aside 12 laws and seven regulations, including several on the environment. Now, we see that the government hid a measure in the middle of this omnibus budget implementation bill, on page 300, that allows any minister to exempt any company from the application of any federal law for a period of three years. Any federal law can be set aside now that the government has decided to sneak this into its budget. Honestly, that is worrisome.

A further look at this budget shows that it goes even further, or rather further backwards. What we have seen since the new government came into office is not that new. It is environmental backsliding. Some might say there is a problem when the government offers billions of dollars in additional subsidies to oil and gas companies. The government presented its budget as a budget for a climate revolution, with a climate competitiveness strategy that would revolutionize everything and demonstrate the government's ambitions. However, the budget does not have a competitiveness strategy. It has a climate capitulation strategy. The overall budget only has an additional $4 million over five years for the climate competitiveness strategy.

If the government thinks Canada will get back on track or get on track to fight for the climate, it cleary has a ways to go. The budget does not have new investments to create a green economy. Environment and Climate Change Canada's budget has been slashed by 15%. The government has extended tax credits for oil and gas companies while simultaneously easing their emission reduction obligations and lifting their existing limits. The government is breaking its promise by continuing to subsidize oil and gas companies even though it had said it would remove subsidies.

Let us turn to greenwashing rules, which the budget has watered down. As we know, oil and gas companies engage in greenwashing all the time. They claim they are green, that they are working. They are sort of like the Prime Minister who has talked about green oil. The government had introduced rules against greenwashing, but the budget watered them down.

The government told us that it was going to review industrial carbon pricing. However, there is nothing specific in the budget about new, stronger pricing measures. The government is doing away with the program to plant two billion trees. The budget contains no new money for parks or protected areas. The government is scrapping the Canada public transit fund, which was intended to fund public transportation, and it is transferring that money to another fund. We do not know how much money, if any, remains in the fund. The same goes for the sustainable mobility fund.

There is no new money for climate change adaptation, even though we are experiencing forest fires, floods and droughts, and the government is doing away with the ZIP program, which targets areas of prime concern in Quebec. That program cost $1 million a year. The government has just made cuts to this program and taken another completely useless step backward just to save a few bucks.

This budget does not meet any of the Bloc's demands. Furthermore, it is clearly the worst budget in the history of this country in terms of environmental backsliding. Consequently, the Bloc Québécois will vote against this budget.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc's response to the budget implementation bill does not surprise me. It is somewhat unfortunate that, despite the amount of investment, whether in the port of Montreal through the major projects program, which would mean literally tens of thousands of jobs, or the expansion through the military expenditure, which is going to do well for Quebec's aerospace industry, not to mention the investments in arts programs and the supports for the French language, we find the Bloc working in coalition with the Conservative Party of Canada to vote for and ultimately cause an election.

That is the major objective of the Bloc party. I am wondering if he would recognize that he seems to be putting the Bloc's best interest ahead of the people of Quebec, as opposed to what the people of Quebec would want to see in the budget.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, unsurprisingly, I disagree with my colleague. This budget does not meet any of the Bloc's very specific demands. We asked for assistance for seniors and an increase in health transfers to Quebec. We also asked for a measure to help young families buy their first home, particularly those who are having difficulty saving for a down payment.

More than anything, we wanted the Liberals to stop giving an average of $10 billion a year to oil and gas companies. We wanted them to invest that money in the right place, but that is not what this budget does. This is climate irresponsibility of the highest order. The Bloc Québécois was prepared for the government to propose amendments and make suggestions in response to specific demands for Quebec, but it did not do so. It did not talk to any of the parties. Obviously, it is solely responsible for the current situation.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to know what my colleague thinks of the Prime Minister's record.

During the election campaign, he said that he would be a great negotiator with the United States and that he would save Canada, including Quebec. However, what we are seeing is increased tariffs, plant closures and job losses.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected because he promised that he would resolve the tariff and trade crisis very quickly, but things just keep getting worse. It is extremely concerning to see that jobs are being lost in Quebec right now. We are losing jobs that might not have been lost if the government had invested in and listened to forestry companies, for example, which are asking for very simple support measures. These companies are asking for help in paying the countervailing duties by receiving the money up front.

What we are seeing is a government that has hardly implemented any measures so far but that is still giving money to oil and gas companies. There are no oil and gas companies in Quebec. Perhaps other sectors of our economy could benefit from this money.

As of now, negotiations with the U.S. administration have been a complete failure.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague about the change that took place between the budget being tabled and the deal being struck with Alberta. Page 348 of the budget clearly states that the tax credits do not apply to enhanced oil recovery. The memorandum of understanding with Alberta states the opposite, however. It says that enhanced oil recovery is included.

Why does he think the government decided to make such a drastic change without offering any explanation?

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think the answer is quite simple. This government, and the Prime Minister especially, is unreliable when it comes to the environment. It cannot be trusted. The backsliding that followed the last budget was straight off the oil and gas companies' wish list. The government is ticking off every item on that list like clockwork. Since this government came to power, its environmental rollbacks have been tailored to the oil and gas companies' agenda. The last—

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

I am sorry, but the hon. member is over his time.

The hon. member for Fundy Royal.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, as we approach Christmastime, it is an honour to be able to stand here in this place and speak to the budget. When I think about the needs of Canadians and what we are all hearing from constituents, I look to the budget to see what is in there for the families struggling to make ends meet, the families we talk to at the grocery store or at the hockey rink who are talking about the struggle to heat their home, put food on the table for their family, maybe get a new hockey stick for their kids for the Christmas season and put gas in their van to get to and from work and sporting events.

I hear from my constituents about that struggle. The government would sometimes have us believe this is all in our heads and that the struggle is not real. However, when we look at this new budget, we are looking to see what is in there for families who are working hard, playing by the rules and paying their taxes.

Some of the numbers in the budget are stark. The federal debt is now $1.35 trillion. The federal debt is a burden, not only on the taxpayers of today but also on the taxpayers of tomorrow: those who are young, those who are just starting off in university and those who are just starting off in elementary school. This is a burden on them.

As well, $55.6 billion is the interest on the federal debt for the 2025-26 fiscal year. What is $55.6 billion, though? How does the average person wrap their mind around a figure as vast as the interest on the debt? A quick way to understand how much money Canadians need to spend, of their tax dollars, on the federal debt is this: This is more money than the Government of Canada spends on health care for the entire country. It is a staggering figure at a time when waiting lists in many provinces are long and people's important treatments are being delayed. The government is spending as much on interest on the debt as they are on health care. In addition, $321.7 billion is the amount that will be added to the federal debt over the next five years. Those are big numbers.

A small number is 1.1%. That is how much Canada's GDP has grown this year. What does that mean? This is the second-lowest growth in the entire G7. For all the spending, Canadians are not better off, and many are falling further behind. That is why we Conservatives called for an affordability budget for an affordable life. We cannot have an affordable life unless the government has an affordable budget.

The reality is that over the last decade, over the last 10 years that the Liberals have been in government, Canadians, Canadian families and communities continue to fall further and further behind. Canadians know all too well the burden of taxes. That burden has increased 32% in the last decade. Canadians are paying 32% more of their hard-earned money for taxes than they were 10 years ago when the Liberals took government. That is more than Canadians are spending on food and housing combined. It is a staggering amount.

There is more bad news in that regard. There is an affordability crisis in housing. There is a crime crisis. We have seen the crime severity index go off the charts now that the Liberals, with their failed policies on bail and other justice measures, have created chaos in our streets.

Another area of failure is on food affordability. The numbers just came out. If Canadians were hoping for some relief, the numbers are not providing it and the budget is not providing it. “Canada's Food Price Report” was just released. This is a direct quote from the report: “If 2025 was difficult for Canadian households, 2026 is unlikely to be any easier.”

In fact, although families are already stretched to the limit and are already making compromises around gassing up their vehicle, heating their home and putting food on the table, the cost of food is going to go up $1,000 this year. Food prices are expected to increase to the point at which, for the average family of four in Canada, the cost of food is $17,571 per year. This is a 112% increase over the last decade.

That is right. The cost of food for Canadian families has doubled in just the 10 years the Liberals have been in government. Have people had their paycheques doubled? Have the paycheques of my constituents and the constituents of members in this chamber doubled? They have absolutely not, but the price they pay to put food on the table for their family has more than doubled. What this means is that, in 2015, the cost for the year was $8,286, or approximately $160 per week for food. Incredibly, since then, in just 10 years, that number has more than doubled to $340 per week for the average Canadian family of four.

When we bore down further into the numbers in this report, it is very staggering. What the report found is that Canadians are compromising healthy choices in favour of more cost-effective options. Nearly a quarter said they would eat healthier and 20% would buy a higher quality of food if they could afford it. We see that the price of strawberries is up 51% since the Prime Minister took office. Beef is up 30%; chicken, 23%; coffee, 22%; ground beef, 14%; and salad dressing, 13%. Canadians literally cannot afford the Liberals at all anymore.

Let us look to my home province of New Brunswick. Feed NB is an organization that supports food banks, community kitchens and similar programs. When I have talked to representatives of food banks in my riding, they have said demand is off the charts. On days when food is being delivered, we see lineups at the food banks. Feed NB is reporting that the demand for their services has seen an astronomical increase of 140% in only the last three years.

New Brunswickers and Canadians are struggling just to put food on the table. The latest MNP Consumer Debt Index found that 24% of Atlantic Canadians are struggling to afford food for their families. What is the government doing with the tax money? It is not their money; it is Canadians' money. It is their hard-earned tax money. Well, it gave carmaker Stellantis $15 billion for a battery plant and $529 million for factory upgrades, but there was no protection for workers. This led to 3,000 layoffs in Brampton.

This week, Canadians learned the Prime Minister handed Algoma Steel $400 million, knowing full well about its plans for layoffs, and now 1,000 steel workers have lost their jobs. This is the same Liberal logic that led to the government committing to spend up to $1.34 billion to prop up Quebec's Northvolt battery plant, only for the company to file for bankruptcy last year.

This week, a paper mill in British Columbia informed workers it would permanently shut down, leading to 375 workers losing their jobs. In New Brunswick, the lumber industry is a key driver of our economy, and we just learned last week of a paper mill in Maine no longer accepting softwood lumber from New Brunswick because of tariffs, which have gone from 14%, when the Prime Minister took office, to 45% now.

We were hoping for some relief for taxpayers in this budget. That relief, unfortunately, is only going to come for Canadians, for New Brunswickers and for families when we elect a Conservative government, one that takes the issue of overtaxation seriously and will enable Canadians to provide for their families by lowering costs, making Canada affordable again and renewing the promise of Canada so that families can be successful and Canadians can enjoy a great future in our great country.

[Patty Hajdu, Liberal, Minister of Jobs and Families and Minister responsible for the Federal Economic Development Agency for Northern Ontario]

Madam Speaker, I note that the member opposite quoted Feed NB. I wonder if he could comment on the recommendation by Feed NB to ensure healthy school food programs, including breakfast programs, and why he would vote against the very thing that Feed NB recommends as part of its strategy to feed hungry folks.

I also wonder why the member voted against the packages for trade-affected workers, like stronger EI and retraining supports, indeed for the Province of New Brunswick, which will be delivering that training to anybody who is impacted by tariffs.

Finally, the member talked about lowering taxes. Budget 2025 speaks about lower taxes for 22 million Canadians, yet the member voted against that as well.

I am just curious to know what exactly he does for the members of his riding when they are asking for the kinds of supports this government is providing.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is unbelievable that the Liberals, after a decade during which crime has skyrocketed, the cost of housing for families has skyrocketed and the cost of food has skyrocketed, can get up and ask us questions about affordability. The cost to families for groceries has doubled since the member's party took government.

We are not going to take any lessons from them on affordability. Canadians are struggling and need help because of the government's policies, because of policies that have hurt our energy sector, because of overtaxation and because of the money printing that has caused inflation to skyrocket. That is why Canadians are struggling. That is why they need help.

The government continues to go down the wrong path. Conservatives will stand up for hard-working Canadian families, always.