Debates of June 17th, 2025

Concurrence in Vote 1—Department of Canadian Heritage

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand before this Parliament to outline the government's spending priorities for the fiscal year 2025-26. Today, I will speak to the 2025-26 main estimates and provide an overview of supplementary estimates (A), 2025-26. Together, these documents outline how government plans to invest in Canadians while meeting the challenges as well as the opportunities that lie ahead.

Before getting into the details, I recognize that the process behind the government's financial reporting cycle may not be well known to all members in the chamber, especially so soon after the general election. Therefore, I will take a moment or two to provide some information to my hon. colleagues, as well as those watching at home.

Each year, the government prepares detailed spending plans known as the estimates. These are a series of reports that provide details on how each department plans to spend public funds on programs and services. There are approximately 130 federal organizations that are required to undergo this process. The Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat gathers all of these planned expenditures into a document called the main estimates, which is tabled in the House of Commons at the start of the year by the President of the Treasury Board.

When departments are in need of funds outside of the main estimates, they go through the supplementary estimates. Supplementary estimates might include funding for new programs or responses for urgent requests or an unforeseen situation, such as a natural disaster, or they could be items that were not fully developed in time to be included in the main estimates. There are three supplementary estimates tabled in the House at different times throughout the year. The supplementary estimates (A) are tabled in the spring; the supplementary estimates (B) are tabled in the fall; and the supplementary estimates (C) are tabled in the winter, as required.

I will turn to some of the highlights of the 2025-26 main estimates. In these main estimates, the government is seeking approval for key investments and priorities like the Canadian Armed Forces, health services for first nations, dental care, border services and immigration, veterans benefits and housing. In total, this year's main estimates present $486.9 billion in budgetary spending.

Transfer payments to provinces and territories, other organizations and individuals account for over 60% of spending, equalling $294.8 billion. These transfer payments reflect increases in benefits for the elderly, the Canada health transfer and the Canada disability benefit.

Approving the main estimates would allow the government to support programs, activities and services for Canadians and Canada, from national security, defence and border security to reconciliation, housing and veterans benefits. For example, $33.9 billion in voted funding is proposed for the Department of National Defence. This includes funding to support our women and men in uniform through military procurement, building sustainable bases, improved IT systems and infrastructure. It would also be put toward recruitment efforts to encourage more Canadians to find a rewarding career in the military, so we can actually make that career rewarding.

Another vital issue is Canada's relationship with its indigenous peoples, where true reconciliation requires concrete action. That is why the proposed spending for the Department of Indigenous Services and the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs includes investments in capacity building to support self-determination, as well as on-the-ground support to improve health outcomes and to support children and their families and education.

I would like to take a moment to speak about the supplementary estimates (A), 2025-26, which were tabled on June 9. Canada is at a pivotal moment in its history, and we need the resources to protect our country and citizens against foreign threats. Through these supplementary estimates (A), the government will do just that.

Canada's defence begins with a clear vision: to be strong at home, secure in North America and engaged throughout the world. To that end, the government is moving quickly to ensure that our military has the tools to defend our country and continent, while remaining an engaged and reliable partner to our allies.

The supplementary estimates (A) propose spending of $9 billion in incremental budgetary spending for two organizations: the Department of National Defence and Communications Security Establishment Canada. This spending would provide key investments in Canada's defence and security capabilities to enhance Canadian Forces retention, recruitment and training, and equipment. It would also support our international defence partnerships and obligations.

I would now like to speak to some of the specific investments. For example, for the Department of National Defence, there is $2.1 billion to allow it to accelerate the recruitment of new members in both the regular and reserve forces. This will make sure the Canadian Armed Forces has the personnel it needs to respond to threats at home while engaging meaningfully abroad. This would also allow it to increase its capacity to provide training, reinforce retention of existing members and improve health services to its members.

The Department of National Defence is also requesting another $2.1 billion to improve partnership with industry. This means enhancing our Canadian industry's ability to provide critical support to the Canadian Armed Forces, focusing on both immediate needs and projects that can be advanced quickly. This would help move forward the government's efforts to strengthen Canada's defence industrial base, boost made-in-Canada production and drive new innovation in vital sectors. This means real benefits and new opportunities for Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

To support these efforts, this investment would also be used to lay the groundwork for a defence industrial strategy. This is about more than just protecting our country. It is about creating good jobs, growing our economy and ensuring a secure and prosperous future for Canadians.

Let me also mention the $2 billion being requested to support Canada's extended co-operation with our international partners. Global safety and security can only be possible by working together with our allies around the world.

I would like to note the importance of the Arctic. Over 40% of the Canadian land mass lies within the Arctic, including 75% of our coastlines, but Canada can no longer rely on its geography and oceans for protection. Climate change is melting our glaciers, and competitors are building up their military and cyber-capabilities. Today's rapidly shifting and increasingly challenging geopolitical environment requires more lines of effort than ever before to defend Canada, more co-operation with allies and partners, and more focus on asserting our presence in the north.

To that end, the Department of National Defence is seeking $1 billion to help support its strategic military capabilities, with a focus on the Arctic. Among the initiatives to be supported are joint support ships, an undersea monitoring and surveillance system, Arctic over-the-horizon radar and long-range artillery.

In addition, the Department of National Defence is requesting $834 million for procurements such as defence equipment, personal gear, technology, infrastructure maintenance and essential services. This funding would also support modernization of range and training infrastructure and the expansion of ammunition infrastructure, as well as preventive and corrective maintenance on the department's real property portfolio.

Finally, Communications Security Establishment Canada and National Defence are partnering on a request for $550 million. This would bolster Canada's cyber-capabilities, support greater interoperability with our allies, better equip Canada to counter the full spectrum of cyber-threats, and enhance network infrastructure, information management, connectivity and data storage.

As parliamentarians, our job of exercising oversight on Government of Canada spending is one of the most important roles we play on behalf of all Canadians. It is crucial to maintaining trust in government, the proper functioning of our government and the integrity of our parliamentary democracy.

The Government of Canada is committed to delivering essential services to Canadians and to helping the country meet the challenges and the opportunities that lie before us. I encourage all members to authorize the spending outlined in these estimates and to help Canada move forward, strong and free.

Before I accept questions from members, I will warn them my wife is in the gallery and my parents are watching.

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

I have to remind the hon. member that we cannot recognize people outside of the chamber, but he is new here so we will give him a little break.

The hon. member for Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, with the allocations towards National Defence, what increase in salary can the members of the Canadian Armed Forces look forward to and, specifically, what type of equipment can they look forward to receiving and learning how to train on?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and our government are committed to ensuring that our Canadian Forces, the men and women who serve in our Canadian Forces, are paid appropriately, that they have the health care and health insurance they require both during their service and post-service, and that they have the equipment to properly protect Canada.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his scholarly presentation. I would also like to take this opportunity to greet his family members, who are here on the Hill today.

At the end of his speech, my colleague said something very important. He said that it is important to study the estimates, because it is the role of Parliament and, by extension, that of the opposition, to serve as a check on the government and its spending.

After what my colleague just said, I wonder if he feels uncomfortable being part of a government that introduced Bill C-5, which is not even split up and in which the government, with the help of the Conservatives, is taking away the ability of Parliament and committees to exercise oversight and conduct a detailed analysis of such a substantial bill. How can they not be uncomfortable saying such a thing about the estimates and doing something completely different for everything else, under the pretext that one line in the Liberal election platform mentioned what is in Bill C-5?

I would like my colleague to tell me about the feelings and emotions he experiences when he tells us contradictory things like that.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, today we need decisive and deliberate action, and one Canadian economy is that action. The Prime Minister and our government are focused and have accomplished a great deal, since we formed government just a couple of months ago, to ensure that we tear down barriers and build up the Canadian economy. That is what is important here today.

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

Madam Speaker, I am actually quite encouraged. Individuals watching this debate will get a better sense of the new Prime Minister and the new administration. The member who just spoke amplifies why we see a new administration. From what I understand, the member brings us his talents from being a former minister of finance in Newfoundland and a parliamentarian for many years who has articulated well on a number of different issues.

I want to continue with two aspects of a question. The Prime Minister brought in a significant tax break in four or five weeks. He committed up to 2% of the GDP for the Canadian Forces, and we have legislation before us, which is going to pass on Friday, to build one Canadian economy.

Can the member provide his thoughts in regard to how the new Prime Minister and administration are working hard for Canadians?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, I think that is the best question so far tonight. We have an increase in health care spending. We have an increase in spending for seniors. There is the tax cut that the member talked about, making homes more affordable for first-time buyers and for Canadians. The one Canadian economy would tear down barriers and build up the economy across the country.

We have almost 22 million Canadians who would see a benefit with the tax break. Not only are we making life more affordable, but we are creating the economic conditions to strengthen our economy.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for outlining the spending. I believe he said that $2.1 billion would be spent for the men and women in uniform, on items such as equipment and recruiting. I was happy to hear this.

I know the Prime Minister announced $4.3 billion for Ukraine, additionally, today, on top of the $25 billion that we already spent. I have heard concerns that people in the Canadian military are having to buy their own boots and equipment. Can the member tell me if the $2.1 billion is going to fix that problem?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, the $2.1 billion is part of a larger spending package, as I outlined in my remarks tonight, for the Canadian Armed Forces. There are a number of areas, which I outlined in my remarks tonight, where we are investing in the Canadian Armed Forces with increased spending to ensure that they have the equipment, that they have the respect and that we actually recruit people to the Canadian Armed Forces and they see it as a rewarding career. We want to ensure that we, as parliamentarians, as a government and as a country, ensure that it is a rewarding career, and that, after service, they have the supports that they require.

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Can he tell us more about how the building Canada strong plan will help families access home ownership?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and our government, during the election campaign, committed to build up to 500,000 homes a year, to make homes more affordable for Canadians across the country, to bring down prices because of supply and demand, and to ensure that homes become more affordable for Canadians.

We have talked about premanufactured homes as part of that. I know the government has talked about using surplus government properties to create housing. There are a number of ways that we are able to approach making housing more accessible and more affordable for Canadians.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the member could outline some of the measures that would help with affordability, especially for families. We heard loud and clear, during the last election, that this was an important issue, and I am sure that is reflected in this budget.

Maybe he could summarize some of those measures for us.

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, the tax cut would provide about $800 per working couple or family, making homes more affordable for first-time homebuyers, strengthening the economy and lowering the cost of products and services by breaking down barriers across the country and making products more accessible to Canadians. It would also create jobs because of Canadian-made and Canadian-supplied products being more accessible across the country, due to having one Canadian economy as opposed to 13.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the government has not increased graduate scholarships by a single cent in 20 years. We were told that it was not a priority. Now the government has a new argument. It is saying that it will follow through on what it said during the election campaign. The Liberals told us that they would invest in science, research and innovation.

I would like my colleague to clarify the following point today. Will there be indexation of graduate scholarships, which, I would remind members, were not increased by a single cent between 2000 and 2024?

[Tom Osborne, Liberal, Cape Spear, NL]

Madam Speaker, I am not ashamed to admit when I do not have an answer to a question; we can get that answer for the hon. member in due course.

What I will say is that the Liberals will provide opportunities for graduating students throughout the country by increasing employment, by building the economy and making it stronger, and by providing the opportunities to keep Canadians at home in Canada to help strengthen our Canadian economy and build our populations.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake.

I rise today to speak for the people the Liberal government has forgotten or maybe never understood to begin with: the people who make this country run. They are up before the sun, coffee in hand, long before the world starts moving. They drive into town for feed, parts and mail. There is no home delivery here. They are starting a frozen tractor at -20°C to feed cattle that we depend on as much as the cattle depend on us. They are planting the first seeds of spring, carrying the quiet hope of harvest months away. They are checking cows in the dead of night, calving by flashlight and welcoming new life into a hard world.

Then there is harvest, the golden hour. Farmers use a combine just before sunset, when the beauty hides the urgency, the sweat and the push to beat the frost. It is not just in the fields. It is someone crawling under a frozen truck to fix a brake line, welding pipe in a -30°C wind or scaling a rig tank in the dark, soaked in grease and grit, because the world does not stop just because it is hard.

These people feed this country. They fuel the economy. They do the work that does not make headlines but keeps the lights on. They are farmers, ranchers, rig hands, truck drivers, mechanics, welders, electricians and diesel technicians. They are the kinds of people this country was built on and still depends on every single day.

These are not folks sitting on panels at the World Economic Forum. They do not fly business class to climate conferences. They do not pretend to save the world one virtue signal at a time. They get up before sunrise. They get their hands dirty. They produce something real. Today, those Canadians are under attack by a government that seems more interested in scolding them than serving them.

Let us talk about the EV mandate, this Trudeau-era fantasy still being pushed forward by the Liberals. Under this policy, the sale of new gas-powered vehicles will be banned by 2035. Starting in 2026, just months from now, manufacturers will be forced to meet EV sales quotas or pay penalties of up to $20,000 per vehicle that does not comply with the mandate. Who pays for that? It will not be the Prime Minister; he does not even buy his own groceries. It will be working Canadians, the people who need their vehicles for work, not for show, and the people who drive F-350s, not Teslas.

Let me walk everyone through what that means on a farm. Grain elevators used to be 12 miles apart because that is how far a horse and wagon could travel in a day. Today, grain has to be trucked 30 miles, 60 miles, 100 miles or more because local rail lines have been torn up or left to rot. The only way to move that grain now is by truck and trailer, and not the kind that we plug into a wall outlet.

Let us look at some numbers: $130,000 for a service truck, $350,000 for a basic tractor, over $1 million for a four-wheel-drive tractor, $1.3 million for a combine, and these are just the base models. There is no electric replacement for that equipment, none. However, the government wants to regulate it out of existence. One regulation can make that entire fleet obsolete overnight. That is not policy; that is economic destruction.

Every part of life on the land depends on engine-driven machinery. That is what took farming from a family feeding a few dozen people to that same farmer today feeding hundreds of thousands. That is the scale we are talking about, and now the government wants to pretend we can swap out a diesel-powered combine for an electric toy with a three-hour charge time and pray it does not die before the frost hits.

Let me tell people something about real farming. We do not get to pause and recharge when it is -20°C and the cows need to be fed. We do not get a do-over if we miss the seeding window or cannot finish harvest before the first snow. We refuel in 10 minutes, not three hours, because out here, range anxiety is not an inconvenience; it is survival.

The Liberals will say not to worry because they will build a charging network. Really? They had better start fast because their own report says they will need 679,000 charging ports by 2040, and right now they have 30,000. They are already 95% behind schedule, and the policy has not even kicked in yet.

On top of that, we would need to double the grid capacity, a 30-year project at best estimates. What about cost? Natural Resources Canada says it will take over $300 billion to prepare for this so-called gas-free future. That is roughly $11,500 per vehicle on the road today, a hidden tax on every Canadian driver on top of the $20,000 coercion fine.

While the government pushes its fantasy, EV sales are collapsing. After federal and Quebec subsidies were paused, EV registrations dropped by over 40% in early 2025. Auto trader and dealership groups have reported declining interest for years, while inventories pile up and sales slow down. What is the plan? It is to force EV quotas, slap $20,000 on car companies and then pretend there is a consumer demand while prices skyrocket and unsold stock collects dust on the lot.

GM and Ford are begging the government to scrap the mandate. Toyota is warning that people do not want to buy what the Liberals are forcing them to buy. Even Europe, where green ideology runs deepest, is hitting the brakes. Germany and Italy are demanding carve-outs. Farmers are protesting by the thousands. In the United States, several states are already delaying or scaling back their mandates. However, in Canada, we are going full speed off the cliff because ideology matters more to the Prime Minister than the people who actually keep this country alive.

Let me be very clear and dispel a myth held by many of my Liberal friends across the aisle. I support innovation. I support energy alternatives, and I support real choice in the market. The agriculture and energy industries have been some of the earliest adopters of new technology: GPS-guided equipment operating down to the millimetre; precision ag that conserves water, fertilizer and pesticide; daily satellite imaging to monitor field health; and automated drilling rigs powered by AI. However, that is only when it actually makes sense. I should know as I was in the middle of it. The people I am speaking about do not need government to force them into the future. They pull this technology into their businesses at the right time and in the right way, with no mandate, no federal handouts and no Liberal intervention required.

There is nothing green about wrecking Canadian agriculture. There is nothing progressive about taking away the tools that build this country, and there is nothing just about a transition that bankrupts farmers and truckers just to hit a government quota. This is not a climate plan. It is a “government knows best” plan, a central planning fantasy dreamed up by people who have never seen a -30°C morning or changed a set of hydraulic hoses in the dark.

We are witnessing a deliberate dismantling of the Canadian economy dressed up as environmental virtue, and I will not stand for it. I will fight this EV mandate. I will fight for the people who get up before dawn and keep working long after the sun goes down. I will fight for Alberta. I will fight for common sense, because if we lose this battle, if we let them take the diesel out of our fields, the gas out of our trucks and the independence out of our lives, we will not be a free country anymore. We will be an experiment. I did not come to this chamber to watch Canada become a failed one.

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

Madam Speaker, the member's speech is just wrong. It is factually incorrect. We have heard from the far right of the Conservative element. Where in the EV mandate does it talk about tractors? Where in the EV mandate does it talk about heavy trucks?

I love farmers too. I grew up on the Prairies in Alberta, Saskatchewan and in the province of Manitoba. When I was in Alberta, it was more during the time I was in the military. However, the point is that the member does not know what he is talking about. The EV mandate does not apply to tractors.

Can the member indicate where he got his source from that shows it would apply to tractors and heavy-duty trucks?

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member opposite's comments because the last time he had a question for me, he acknowledged I was right, so I really thought that was good. In this case, he thinks I am far-right, farther right or more right.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

I am fantastically proud. I love it.

Madam Speaker, getting back to the subject, I would say this is a first step. We have seen this game play out before, time and time again. I know it is gas vehicles today, but all internal combustion engine-derived equipment is on the block, and it is just a matter of time.

[Connie Cody, Conservative, Cambridge, ON]

Madam Speaker, you raised important points about how the Liberal gas ban would impact farmers and rural communities. I keep thinking back to the blackout in Alberta earlier this year, where people were told to turn off the lights, lower thermostats and avoid using appliances right in the middle of winter.

Are your constituents worried that forcing everyone onto the electrical grid will make things worse, not better? What are you hearing from people about the reliability risk of this rushed transition?

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

I cannot answer the hon. member. The hon. member has to pass the question through the Chair so that I can direct it.

The hon. member for Bow River.

[David Bexte, Conservative, Bow River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your indulgences in a new House with new members who are just learning the ropes.

We talked about range anxiety with EVs a lot in the debate, but grid anxiety is something that is emerging. Blackouts all over the world, not just in Alberta and western Canada, are showing that the combination of different input sources to electricity are not balanced, and we have not quite gotten that figured out yet. If we just add more and more demand to the grid, we know, by projections, that the grid will be 50% too small for any projected use. It is a 30-year project at least to get the grid up to some sort of scale that will handle the load that is anticipated by this. There is a lot of grid anxiety.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to say hello to my colleague and wish him a good evening. It could be a long night.

I understand from my colleague that he had a good career in the energy sector and in the business world and that he has now been elected as a Conservative member of Parliament. This is his first term.

Since taking office, since we have been sitting, he voted with the Liberals last week to steal $814 million from Quebeckers. This week, he voted with the Liberals to support a gag order, and then to support a gag order on the gag order to short-circuit the work of Parliament.

I would like to know whether, as a new member, he was expecting to vote with the Liberals so often and whether that surprises him.