Debates of Dec. 5th, 2025

The House resumed from December 4 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

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, whether someone lives in Toronto or a small town in southeast Saskatchewan, every dollar that Ottawa spends beyond its means ultimately comes out of the pockets of Canadians, either through taxes today or inflation tomorrow. Families in my riding tell me the same thing over and over: They are working harder than ever and somehow falling further behind.

I have spoken with farm families, the people who feed this country and the world, who have found themselves relying on the food bank for the first time. It is not because they are not working hard; they are. It is because the cost of running a farm, including fuel, fertilizer, insurance and machinery, has outpaced the market and the market's return. In fact, farm receipts have fallen by 26% according to FCC.

This budget only worsens that reality by maintaining the industrial carbon tax, which hikes the cost of food production and transport; increasing the regulatory burden on resource development, making energy more expensive; and adding new layers of bureaucracy instead of reducing costs for families and businesses. A government that claims affordability is its priority cannot pass a budget that consistently pushes Canadians toward the breaking point. It is a real missed opportunity to strengthen Canada's resource economy.

Bill C-15 continues a troubling pattern of policies that undermine the industries that have historically built and funded Canada's prosperity. In Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Newfoundland and Labrador, energy and mining are not abstract concepts. They are paycheques, municipal tax bases and the economic backbone of entire regions. These industries want to innovate, reduce emissions and expand opportunity, but they cannot do that when the federal government treats them as something to be managed rather than partners in national prosperity.

The budget implementation act does nothing to reverse the damaging emissions cap on oil and gas; create certainty for pipeline and export projects; provide competitive incentives for Canadian potash, uranium, helium and rare earths; or help provinces build the infrastructure needed for the next generation of small nuclear reactors. This is not a regional argument. A strong resource economy is a national benefit. Every hospital, school and road in this country has been financed in part by the power of the resource-producing provinces. When the federal government undermines these industries, the entire country loses.

As someone who has served at the provincial level, I have a deep respect for the constitutional division of powers. Provinces understand their communities, industries and local needs far better than Ottawa ever can. However, Bill C-15 accelerates a trend of federal expansion into areas that were never intended to be directed from the capital. Whether it is intrusion into natural resource development, agriculture, labour markets or local infrastructure priorities, this budget assumes Ottawa always knows best. Local governments, provincial and municipal, need flexibility, not a one-size-fits-all directive buried in a 600-page document. Conservatives believe in restoring respect for the federation. We believe in partnership, not paternalism.

One of the most troubling parts of the budget is how much of the new spending goes not to frontline services but to expanding bureaucracy. Canadians do not need more gatekeepers. They need timely, reliable, efficient service from the government they fund. However, we have seen longer passport delays, slower immigration processing, inconsistent service from EI and CPP call centres, and growing regulatory backlogs at CFIA and PMRA that hurt farmers, processors and exporters. Despite record spending, Canadians are getting worse results. Bill C-15 does nothing to correct this.

Having spent years doing business internationally, I can say with certainty that countries that succeed over the long term do two things really well. They create stable conditions for investment, and they foster a regulatory environment that rewards productivity, innovation and growth. Canada is falling behind in both. Meanwhile, our trading partners, notably the United States, are attracting investment at a pace we are not matching. That has direct consequences on jobs, wages and long-term prosperity. This budget should have been an opportunity to signal to the world that Canada is open for business again. Instead, it signals that Canada is doubling down on complexity, cost and uncertainty.

For over two decades, I lived and worked in countries transitioning from centralized control to open markets. Those experiences taught me this simple truth: The more government tries to control every aspect of the economy, the more productivity fails, the more investment dries up and the more ordinary people struggle. I see the echoes of those systems in the growing federal bureaucracy, in the layering of regulation upon regulation, and in Ottawa's insistence that central planners know better than workers, farmers, entrepreneurs or provinces. The lesson from overseas is clear: Prosperity grows from the bottom up, not the top down. That is a principle Conservatives embrace and that this budget ignores.

Canadians deserve a budget that reflects their priorities, not Ottawa's priorities. Conservatives will bring forward a plan grounded in three core commitments: restore affordability and lower the cost of living by axing the carbon tax and reducing unnecessary regulation and costs, strengthening competition to lower grocery and housing prices, and stopping inflationary deficits that erode household spending power; unleash the private sector by removing the barriers to resource development, accelerating approvals for energy, mining and agricultural innovation, and supporting interprovincial trade and labour mobility through initiatives like blue seal licensing and shovel-ready zones; and respect provincial and municipal authority by empowering local governments rather than micromanaging them from Ottawa, reforming federal departments to deliver timely, efficient service, and investing in national infrastructure only in partnership with provinces, which know their priorities best. This is the path to a more confident, prosperous and united Canada.

Canadians are experiencing one of the most challenging economic periods in recent memory. They needed a budget that recognized the hardship they are facing, respected the federation, supported the industries that sustain our country and restored conditions for economic growth. Bill C-15 does none of that. Instead, it doubles down on overspending, overreach and policies that undermine affordability and competitiveness.

That is why Conservatives will oppose this bill and continue to stand up for families, workers, farmers and businesses who need a government that is on their side. Canada has unlimited potential. What we need now is leadership that trusts Canadians, empowers provinces, respects taxpayers and unleashes the strength of our private sector. Those are my remarks on Bill C-15.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister do care about Canadians. That is one of the reasons we have the budget that we presented. It does a lot of the things the member says that it does not do. Whether it is the issue of affordability or building a stronger and healthier Canada, there is lots of stuff in there for the Conservatives to recognize and vote in favour of. Of course, they have a different approach when it comes to serving Canadians. They are more interested in their own political party's interests as opposed to Canadian interests.

When will the Conservative Party realize that it is time to start moving legislation through the House of Commons, whether it is the budget implementation bill or bail reform legislation? The Conservative Party is the biggest stumbling block in Canada today in terms of progressive measures to help Canadians.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear my hon. colleague's question. When we think of stumbling blocks in Canada, we think of bills like Bill C-48, which stops production in Canada. We have the government passing a new bill to get around their own bills that are not working and are hampering investment in Canada. The Liberals have a lot of work to do to restore Canadians' faith in the system.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was surprised at the question from our colleague opposite. He is saying that it is time to start moving legislation through the House. I have been here for 10 years and, quite frankly, I find that the government's legislative agenda is rather paltry. Right now there are not a lot of bills on the table.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the Liberal government's legislative record.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my previous answer, the Liberal government has a track record of making things more difficult for industry and private business, and more difficult and more expensive for Canadians.

However, instead of fixing the problems that they created with their previous legislation, the Liberals create new legislation that is a workaround. This is nothing more than a way for the Prime Minister and his cabinet to hand-pick projects that they wish to go ahead, yet we have not even seen any of them go ahead. I have to agree with my colleague from the Bloc that this is a very thin legislative project from the government.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in my hon. colleague's thoughts about the offering from the government. It is a failure to rein in deficit spending; it blew the doors off that. There is no plan to reduce that inflationary spending now, with expenses on debt outstripping what we are spending on health care in this country at a time when we are facing a health care human resource shortage across the country. There is no plan to get rid of government taxes that raise the price of food and food production, like the industrial carbon tax.

I am interested in the member's comments regarding what he would propose as an alternative to help make life more affordable for Canadians, who are lined up at food banks in record numbers.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that excellent question because it gets to the heart of the matter in Canada right now, a lot of which has to do with affordability. Affordability comes down to being able to afford things like groceries and rent. However, what we see in Canada right now are record-high prices for housing and record-high prices for groceries and for supplies that people need. Business owners are struggling under a ridiculous amount of taxes in this country. There are many things the government could do right now, like reducing or scrapping the industrial carbon tax or reining in its ridiculous deficit spending, but the government seems unwilling to do any of it.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

We have time for a very short question.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will try to keep my question brief for my hon. colleague from Souris—Moose Mountain.

We need in this country to think about how we become a modern industrial economy, and I do not see an industrial strategy coming out of the current or previous governments. We seem to still think we are hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Would the hon. member agree with me that it would be better if no natural resources were shipped out of Canada in a raw, unprocessed state. We improve productivity when we add—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I did say a “short question”. I have to allow the member for Souris—Moose Mountain to respond.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with that question, actually. We could be doing so much more in Canada when it comes to value added on our products. We are known for our world-class commodities, but when it comes to things like rare earth minerals, we see there is a new refining facility in Saskatoon. When we look at canola, for example, canola crush is becoming a huge thing in Canada, which is increasing our value added.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

I am honoured to participate in the budget debate.

I think that the context of this budget is important. First of all, it was delayed for an unprecedented number of months and introduced in the fall, which will now be the new government's budget cycle. It was also preceded by a lot of rhetoric from the government about what kind of budget it would be, with commitments about making this a budget full of “generational investments”, saying that it would “swing for the fences”, that it would “define our next century” and that it would be “transformative”. That is the context in which this budget was hyped.

However, when we actually got the budget on November 4, it was anything but. It was not a budget like that of 1971, which introduced comprehensive tax reform that had been largely recommended by the Carter commission. It was not a budget like that of 1988, which collapsed 10 federal tax brackets into three and started the country on a transformative change to our economy. It was not like the budget of 1991, which took the difficult step of eliminating the 13.5% manufacturer sales tax and introducing a broader and lower value-added tax in the form of the GST. It was not the budget of 1996, introduced by then finance minister Paul Martin, which introduced the plan to balance the federal government's finances in 36 months.

This budget had none of the hallmarks of the budgets of those four important years.

Instead, this budget would do quite the opposite. It would continue us down the path of the last 10 years. It is another big spending, big government, big Liberal budget. In fact, this government's budget has weaker fiscal anchors than the previous Liberal government's.

The last Liberal budget had a fiscal anchor of deficits of less than 1% of GDP. This budget would double those deficits, averaging 2% of GDP in the coming years. The last Liberal budget had a fiscal anchor of a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. This budget would increase the debt to GDP.

It is clear that this government's fiscal anchor is weaker than the previous Liberal government's. The new fiscal anchor is some weird new invention that very few, if any, other G7 countries use. The new fiscal anchor is a balanced operating budget by 2029 and a declining deficit rather than debt-to-GDP ratio. By fiscal year 2029, the deficit will only be $58 billion. By then, the government projects that the interest on the debt will be $71 billion, chewing up 13¢ of every dollar, up from only six cents as recently as fiscal year 2022.

Last July, bond rating agency Fitch Ratings warned that a material rise in the debt-to-GDP ratio and a material rise in our deficit could lead to a credit downgrade. This budget would double deficits and lead to an ever-increasing debt-to-GDP ratio. As a result, here is what Fitch Ratings said several weeks ago after the budget was delivered:

Canada's...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances, says Fitch Ratings. While Canada’s rating is broadly stable, persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term. This may be exacerbated by persistent economic underperformance caused by tariff risks and structural challenges, including low productivity.

In other words, the government's increased deficits and rising additions to the national debt have eroded the federal government's finances and weakened its credit profile. We are at particular risk because all of this could be exacerbated by additional tariffs and our ongoing low productivity.

We can all acknowledge that the tariffs levied by the U.S. administration are not within the control of government, but what is within the control of government is low productivity. The government has immense macroeconomic levers at its disposal to turn around this country's chronically low, if not declining, labour productivity. I would like to dwell on this for just a moment.

The deputy governor of the Bank of Canada called Canada's low productivity an “emergency”. She said, “it's time to break the glass.” Despite that warning over a year ago, the government failed to meet the moment and failed to introduce fundamental reforms to get the Canadian economy on track. A famous economist once said that the only long-run determinant of prosperity is productivity, and the government has absolutely failed to introduce fundamental reforms to meet the moment to get our productivity turned around.

A second point on the government's deficits and debt is that the government often touts its record on net debt, but that fails to take into account that Canada is the smallest of the G7 economies. It has the smallest currency of the G7 economies. We are not part of the eurozone. We are not the U.S. dollar, and we are not the U.K. pound. We are the smallest of the G7 currencies, and we are not a reserve currency like the U.S. dollar or the eurozone.

The government's rhetoric on net debt also fails to take into account a second important distinction from other G7 countries, which is that we are the most indebted subnational debt country in the G7. We have some of the highest levels of subnational debt in the OECD, which the federal government backstops.

I will remind the House that it was just over five years ago when a province hit the fiscal wall. It ran out of money. Now, that may not be remembered by many people, because it happened in March of 2020 when the global pandemic hit, but in March 2020, Newfoundland and Labrador tried to raise cash on debt capital markets to pay for nurses, doctors and teachers, and it could not. It did not have any money to meet payroll, and as a result, it went to the federal government and asked for an emergency transfer of cash to keep basic government operations going.

When we take into account subnational debt, and when we take into account that we are the smallest of the G7 currencies and not a global reserve currency, the government's record on debt does not look as good as it would have everyone believe.

I will finish by asking this: Where are the fundamental reforms that meet the moment? Where are the transformative reforms that are generational? Where is the competition reform? Where is the regulatory reform? Where is the tax reform?

Many had hoped, myself included, that the government was going to commit to that comprehensive tax reform. The Liberals have been promising fundamental tax reform since their first budget in 2016. Other governments have introduced fundamental tax reforms that transformed the economy, moved productivity and created prosperity and growth. I think of the budgets of 1971, of 1988, of 1991 and of 1996.

Instead of fundamental progrowth tax reform, regulatory reform and competition reform, we are getting a bunch of special loopholes and deductions for specially targeted sectors. It is creating more big government, more “big government knows best”, and more of the big programs and big sectoral focuses that will do nothing to turn this economy around or address the fundamental economic crisis we are facing in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is ironic coming from a member who sat around, along with the leader of the Conservative Party, with Stephen Harper. When we look at Stephen Harper's record of low productivity, he will recognize that it was a disaster. He did not do anything for the productivity of Canadians during that miserable 10 years, and the member sat around in that caucus.

On the deficit situation, we are, in fact, when it comes to the debt, number one on a pro-rated basis in the G7. We are number two in the G7 on the deficit situation.

We have a new Prime Minister who has a background that is going to help get the job done. Why was the member such a failure when he was part of government back then?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that question highlights the financial illiteracy that pervades the House. The fact of the matter is that, if we go to Statistics Canada's labour productivity data, we will see that, over the course of the 1990s and the early aughts, right to 2015, a good part of 25 of the last 35 years in this country, labour productivity consistently marched upward. What we have seen, though, in the last 10 years, particularly in the last five, is that labour productivity has stalled, if not declined, in some years.

As far as the debt goes, I would add, for example, that the Province of Ontario has a larger debt than the State of California, so the member is wrong when he talks about net debt.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that one of my colleague's values involves opposing the federal government's centralization of health and social services.

Does he agree that money could have been found in the budget to increase health and social service transfers? Every province in Canada is struggling to provide quality services because they have to do more with less.

Does my colleague agree with me that the government could have reduced certain expenses in order to increase transfers to Quebec and the provinces for health and social services?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to ensuring federal transfers to the provinces for health and social services, I think the most important thing is economic growth and long-term prosperity. Economic growth is the best way to ensure long-term prosperity. We need to increase our productivity.

There is nothing about that in the budget, and I think that is a serious problem in Canada.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from the Liberals numerous times that somehow the problems we find ourselves with today are Stephen Harper's fault.

I wonder if my colleague could tell us if we should blame these problems on, let us say, Mackenzie King, or is this a newer problem?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the record of the Liberals over the last 10 years has been the worst economic record in this country since the Second World War period. That is an incontrovertible fact. If members look at the labour productivity tables, for example, what will they see is that labour productivity has flatlined over the last number of years.

Even with Statistics Canada's recent upward revision in GDP numbers, per capita GDP has flatlined over the last number of years, all while our economic peer group has seen per capita GDP go up. We are falling behind, which is why we are falling behind in global league tables on a range of measures such as productivity, growth, and so many other measures.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity, or maybe the misfortune, to speak to Bill C‑15, which aims to implement part of what was in the federal budget. Budget implementation bills are always interesting. In theory, the goal of a budget implementation bill is to implement what is in the budget. However, sometimes other measures are included as well.

The government sometimes uses this opportunity to include all sorts of other measures in these bills that are not really related to the budget. That is something the Liberals used to decry when they were in opposition, but now they are doing the same thing. The bill before us is 650 pages long. These 650 pages contain 80 legislative measures that amend a total of 49 laws.

I predict that in a few weeks, maybe shortly after Christmas, the Liberals will start complaining that it is taking too long for the bill to get passed, that we are receiving too many witnesses, and that we are spending too much time studying it. However, they introduced a bill that is 650 pages long and that includes the equivalent of 80 legislative measures, which is practically 80 bills that amend 49 laws. We cannot be expected to adopt all of that without giving it proper consideration.

I want my colleagues to be aware that we will need time to study this bill, because it will have many repercussions. We have already determined that certain elements of this bill are problematic. Among other things, the government has made its direction fairly clear in recent weeks, with its focus on oil and the extension of the carbon storage tax credit until 2041. This tax credit was not supposed to be extended for so long, but it continues. What is more, it is not just being extended. The amounts are also being increased for the period from 2031 to 2036.

The bill also amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to facilitate the export of liquefied natural gas and allow for 50-year export licences.

This is all perfectly consistent with what the government has been doing in recent months. One of the things it did recently was eliminate electric vehicles subsidies. The government had promised to reinstate them, but never did. It also got rid of the EV sales mandates, or at least paused them. No one knows when this measure will be reinstated either. It eliminated the consumer carbon tax. People in English Canada no longer pay a carbon tax. People in Quebec never paid it, because we have our own model.

Basically, the government is completely aligned with the oil companies' priorities and completely aligned with what the Conservatives want, so much so that it has even announced a new pipeline. That is just crazy. These are the kinds of things this government is doing. It is sad, knowing that people elected this government to stand up to Donald Trump. That was more or less the Liberal slogan, how they characterized themselves. They kept saying “elbows up” and that it was important to be strong to stand up to Donald Trump.

What kind of policy has Donald Trump implemented in the United States? He has completely abandoned the energy transition in the U.S. What is the Liberal government doing here? It is completely abandoning the energy transition. A few weeks ago, I met with people from Quebec's transportation electrification sector. They are deeply concerned about the course that the government is taking. They are afraid that the entire transportation electrification industry that has developed in Quebec is at risk. That is a serious concern. All of this came about because of a Liberal government that got elected by making false statements and then decided to adopt the Conservatives' political agenda and do Donald Trump a favour.

I have another good example of the methods the Liberals are using. I am talking about Bill C-5, which is now an act meant to speed up so-called major projects and allow them to circumvent laws. Under this act, if a project pleases the government, it no longer needs to comply with legislation. It is exempt and gets fast-tracked through the process without the public having a say and without the proponent needing to obey environmental rules and laws.

In the bill before us, the government is doing the same thing it did in Bill C-5, except that it is is giving itself even more power. The government did not even make an announcement about it, and it will not be studied in detail in committee. Talk about hypocrisy.

What is more, there are no oversight measures. When Bill C-5 was studied in committee, we ensured that a special committee would be responsible for monitoring its implementation and that the project selection process would be transparent. There will be mechanisms in place to ensure that things function somewhat better. We are still concerned, but at least there are a few small mechanisms in place to monitor the progress of these projects.

Page 300 of Bill C‑15 includes something rather peculiar. I will go over it quickly. It states:

...a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of

(a) a provision of an Act of Parliament, except the Criminal Code, if the minister is responsible for the Act;

(b) a provision of an instrument made under an Act of Parliament, except an instrument made under the Criminal Code....

Basically, if the government thinks that doing so will help technology companies and foster innovation, then it can tailor the application of legislation to reward its own friends. Personally, I find it mind-boggling that the government is basically giving itself powers to circumvent laws in a completely arbitrary manner, as we saw with Bill C‑5. Now, the government is doing the same thing quietly, in secret, with Bill C‑15. There was no mention of this in the budget statement, and there was no democratic debate in society at large. It is really worrisome to see the authoritarian direction the government is taking. It boasts about standing up for the rule of law, while undermining it through a back door. The direction this government is taking is very worrisome.

That is not all. Bill C-15 contains one element that we find deeply disurbing, particularly since it is coming from a government that was elected to stand up to Donald Trump. This bill formally repeals the Digital Services Tax Act, which required web giants to pay a portion of their taxes in Canada. This law provided for a 3% tax on revenue, because we know that these companies often report their income in a physical establishment located in another country, such as the United States or elsewhere. This practice allows them to avoid paying taxes in Canada even though they bring in enormous revenues, because everything is done on the Internet.

We decided that the solution was to tax revenue generated here, rather than taxing based on the physical location of the company, which was problematic. Since Europe had decided to impose a 3% tax, that is what we proposed at the negotiating table. This measure obviously met with a lot of resistance from Donald Trump and the Americans. What did the Canadian government do? First, it announced that the tax would be put on hold and that the Liberal Prime Minister would not implement it. Now, this bill goes even further and rescinds the tax completely, so that is the end of standing up to web giants.

We have been speaking out on this issue for years. I sometimes get the impression that we are crying out in the wilderness here in Ottawa. Unfortunately, this is a major problem for our culture and our media. This advertising revenue, which is essential to Quebec's—and to a certain extent Canada's—cultural vitality, is going somewhere else entirely. The government is not even imposing taxes on it, even though it is money that is going abroad. This advertising revenue is leaving the country and harming our industry. I find that unfortunate. The Liberal government claims to defend Canada, but really it is not doing anything at all to defend Quebec's interests in this regard. On the contrary, it is once again capitulating to the Americans and to the U.S President's bullying tactics.

Worse still, the government officials got nothing in return. They had said they would get something in return, that they knew how to handle the situation. In the end, they gained nothing on this issue or any of the other issues on which the Canadian government backed down. Nothing was gained. It is sad because the 3% tax on the revenues of web giants was expected to bring in $7.2 billion over five years. That kind of money could go a long way to helping our struggling media companies and cultural sector.

The reality is that the Canadian government has money. It is offering Radio-Canada $150 million. Meanwhile, TVA, Noovo, Bell Media, local papers, Cogeco Média and Coops de l'information are cutting jobs. All our media outlets are dying, but the Liberals are indifferent. That is the reality, yet the media is essential to maintaining our democracy.

English Canada clearly has no idea what Quebec culture is. English Canadians do not care about it. In fact, they could not care less. Perhaps there is a reason the Liberals just appointed the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs as Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages. That member is part of the West Island clique, which views any gesture to promote French as one gesture too many. Those folks are fed up with hearing that the French language needs to be protected. They do not like it when we stand up for French. What they want is for us to quietly go away. We will never allow that to happen. Excessive funding for English is not the solution. We must defend our culture and our identity. We will fight for Quebec.

[Linda Lapointe, Liberal, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, believe me, I will fight for Quebec too, and I will fight for the French language. I agree with the investments in CBC/Radio-Canada that my colleague talked about.

I would like to know what my Bloc Québécois colleague thinks about our budget and the investments that we are going to make in the Port of Montreal at Contrecoeur, in Hydro-Québec, in culture and for the French language. What do his constituents think of the federal investments in the Canada child benefit? What do they think about the Canadian dental care plan, which must certainly be helping 20% of them?

Will my hon. colleague vote in favour of this budget?

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to everyone that the Bloc Québécois is not going to vote for this bill any more than it voted for the budget. We voted on the budget, and the Bloc Québécois's position is clear.

The Bloc Québécois's demands were all denied by the government opposite, a minority government acting like a majority government. It is sad to see this government do absolutely nothing to defend our culture. Whenever it does do something, it always comes with a little Canadian flag. We have to sing O Canada at the top of our lungs or lose our subsidies. That is how it works in Ottawa.

We are not going to put up with that.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight some labour productivity statistics that members of the House may not be aware of. This is from Statistics Canada, table 36-10-0480-01: In 2006, labour productivity was $56.8 per hour. In 2015, it was $61 per hour, an increase of $4.2 an hour. In 2024, it was $63.2 an hour, an increase of only $2.2.

It is clear that the record of the previous Conservative government on labour productivity for all industries, all sectors, was far better than that of the current Liberal government. I just wanted to make sure that was read into the record for the elucidation of members of the House who may not be aware of that.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raises some interesting points.

What I heard him say is that productivity is calculated based on the average hourly rate; however, that rate did not increase significantly at the time and did not keep pace with the cost of living.

I could draw a parallel with Canada's immigration policies. In the past, Canada's immigration policies were designed to select people based on their level of education and their compatibility with the labour market. The idea was that these people would raise the overall standard. Unfortunately, there has been a complete change of direction by the federal government opposite. Now, the federal government's policy is to welcome as much cheap labour as possible. As a result, when we welcome people who are paid less than the average, it drags Canada down.

I do not mean that these jobs should not be filled. The government is simply taking the easy way out instead of looking at innovation, automation and job retention, with incentives for people who may want to stay in the labour market. These positions are filled by people who are more vulnerable and who will be paid less. Then they are weaponized when they are told they have to vote Liberal because they owe their citizenship to the Liberal government.

It is sad to see.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my colleague's excellent speech. He basically expressed and illustrated a great irony.

The recent trade war with the Americans has led to a bit of a surge in Canadian nationalism. At the same time, the current government is making a lot of concessions. The Liberals say they want to defend Canadian sovereignty, but they are aligning themselves with American policies on the environment and when it comes to the taxes on digital giants. They want “autocratization”, that is, a greater concentration of power in the hands of cabinet ministers.

Does my colleague not think that this is yet another reason why Quebec needs to be independent now more than ever?