Debates of Nov. 5th, 2026

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, how can Canadians be masters of their own destiny when they lack even the means to fill their refrigerators? This budget tells us that the government is going to get $30 billion in new revenues from Canadians, with absolutely nothing for the middle class. Deficits will reach $62 billion in 2026‑27, $62 billion in 2027‑28, $57 billion in 2028‑29, $53 billion in 2029‑30, and $52 billion in 2030‑31.

The debt is going to soar to astronomical levels. Interest is going to reach an all-time high. Who is going to pay for it all? Canadians are going to pay, especially the middle class.

Why did you leave out the middle class?

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would remind the member that questions must be addressed through the Chair.

The hon. Minister of Finance.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians watching at home are probably wondering whether the hon. member has read the right budget. The 2026 budget we have just presented contains $22 billion in measures to make life more affordable for Canadians, on top of the $100 billion in affordability measures already in place.

On this side of the House, we know that more needs to be done on housing, and that is exactly what we are doing. We recognize that we need to help Canadians cope with the cost of groceries, because this is a weekly concern for people. We recognize that we need to do more to help people by reducing the gas tax. That is exactly what we have done. We have taken action on the three affordability challenges facing Canadians. We will continue to be there for them every step of the way.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have gone through the budget. I appreciate the opportunity, and I say to the hon. minister for heritage, good job on heritage, with creative work.

My question is to the Minister of Finance. Is accounting now a creative industry? On page 352, we see that capital investments are defined broadly as including any expenditure, which is basically anything. This is the most bizarre description of a capital cost. The Minister of Finance might turn to his colleague on his left. If he were a banker and someone showed up and said, “I want this money for advertising because it is going to end up making more money for me, so therefore, it is a capital expenditure and I can write it off right now”, would any banker give them the money? Apparently, this deduction would.

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for my colleague, but I thought she would talk about the $50-million investment in our national electricity strategy, doubling the electricity generation in this country. I thought she would talk about our climate plan. I thought she would talk about our ocean plan. I am sure she will have other opportunities to rise in the House and to say we are seizing the opportunities to build a stronger Canada.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a continuation of the betrayal on climate action.

After rolling out the red carpet for oil and gas companies and pipelines, the government continues to subsidize oil and gas. It is weakening industrial carbon pricing. It is weakening regulations on clean electricity. It is removing the zero-emissions mandate for electric vehicles. It is freezing emissions mandates for light-duty vehicles. There is no money for public transit or for climate adaptation.

Can the government explain to us why it is sacrificing our children's future and the Paris agreement, all for the sake of the oil and gas companies?

[François-Philippe Champagne, Liberal, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know there are several pages in the budget, but I think my colleague missed a few. Let us talk about heat pumps instead. A historic investment will help millions of people across the country use electricity.

Let us talk about charging stations. I am sure he has not gotten to that part yet. There is going to be some good news about charging stations.

Let us talk about our climate plan, which will transform growth across the country. There is a lot of good news in this budget, which the member has not had a chance to see yet, but we will help him out.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, the budget's number one job should have been to save Canadians money.

The reality, however, is that $765 billion in debt is going to get piled on over the next five years. It is a credit card budget that is going to blow up interest rates, inflation and the cost of groceries, gas and housing. This budget is going to make life more expensive for single mothers, small businesses and seniors.

For that reason, the Conservatives are going to vote against the budget. We want to save Canadians money and make life more affordable.

The minister should have more aptly named this budget “mastered by debt”, mastered by debt that will inflate the cost of food, fuel and housing. The first priority of this budget should have been to save Canadians money, but by adding $765 billion in new debt, a record-smashing sum, over the next five years, the Prime Minister will inflate the cost of fuel, food and homes. This is a costly credit card budget that Canadians cannot afford, and Conservatives will vote no.

Let us go through the facts one by one.

First are our demands. We asked the Prime Minister to cut gas prices by 20¢ a litre and $1,200 per family by eliminating all federal taxes at the pump. Not only did the Prime Minister fail to do that, but he intends to raise gas taxes early next year, which will mean that Canadians will pay more not only at the pump but also for every single item that arrives at the grocery store.

Second, we asked the Liberals to cut waste. Instead, the Prime Minister is growing spending in this budget by an eye-watering $150 billion.

Third, we asked the Prime Minister to keep his promise from the election to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio so that our debt no longer gobbles up so much of the resources needed for health care and other basic benefits. Instead, the Prime Minister has officially broken that promise today.

As I said, the Prime Minister will add $765 billion to our national debt, the single biggest borrowing binge in Canadian history, more than Trudeau, more than during COVID and more than any other government in the history of this country, an amount that will lead to higher inflation and interest rates today and higher taxes down the road. The single biggest item of spending growth in this budget is not seniors programs, not health care, not security and not sovereignty, but the opposite: It is interest on the national debt. In fact, seniors, single moms and small businesses will now have to spend about $60 billion every year on interest to bankers and bondholders. That is right. It is money for bankers and bondholders instead of nurses and doctors.

Every family of four will spend $6,000 this year on interest alone, an amount that rises to $8,100 annually by the year 2030-31. In fact, by that year, the government will be spending $17 billion more on debt interest annually than on health care.

To cover up the growing cost of the Prime Minister's costly credit card budget, he has cooked the books. He has divided the spending onto three separate credit cards: operational, capital and Crown corporations. The only problem is that he has no rule to determine which expense goes where. There is no other government anywhere on earth that follows the accounting practices the Prime Minister is introducing. They violate the generally accepted accounting principles that apply to corporations. If he were to do this with any private company, that company would be charged with defrauding its investors and its workers. Furthermore, the Parliamentary Budget Officer says that there is no defining rule to determine what is operating capital or a Crown corporation, and by putting billions of dollars into the latter category, it is effectively like gambling away a fortune on the company credit card and then pretending one does not have to pay it back.

To understand the scale of the financial engineering in which the Prime Minister is engaged, let me put this into perspective. The budget forecasts an already staggering series of deficits of $289 billion over the next five years, but that does not include non-budgetary transactions over the same period of $476 billion, which means that the government will borrow $765 billion over that period, of which two-thirds is hidden from the budget books.

Let us get this clear. The Prime Minister intends to borrow half a trillion dollars off the budget books. Here is the bad news for everyone else: They have to pay interest whether the government puts it on the books or not. The Prime Minister can mock Canadians, the single moms, the seniors and the small businesses, as he is doing now, who will have to pay that interest, but none of them will collect the interest on that debt. The Prime Minister should show Canadian taxpayers some respect.

The budget should have been about real people with real problems in the real world in their real lives, people like Sally, a single mom and waitress I met at the restaurant in my hotel in Windsor. She works full-time as a waitress, and then she goes over to another hotel and works full-time again, in charge of all the laundry at that other hotel. On the weekends, in her spare time, she has a catering business. She tells me that even with those three jobs, she is not able to get ahead, and she wonders if her three boys will ever be able to afford a home, as I hear Liberals giggling and laughing at her misery on the other side of the House of Commons. That is the callous and cruel mentality that they have toward suffering single moms who cannot afford to pay their bills in this country.

There are the young guys I met the other day at a southwestern Ontario pub who work at a GM dealership non-stop. All of them, despite being in their early thirties, believe they will never be able to afford a home. There is the small business owner who has a gym. He came here as an immigrant and opened up a small business with the dream that his family would get ahead, but every year the costs imposed by inflation make it impossible for him to maintain his business and keep his employees going, wondering if he will even be able to stay in business.

That is why Conservatives said a week ago that the single job of the budget should be to save Canadians money. We do not do that by adding $765 billion of debt on the backs of Canadians.

Then there is the theatre. They claim they are going to help small businesses on capital gains. They listed this new capital gains break, and they said that everyone qualifies, except if they are in agriculture, mining, retail, restaurants, manufacturing or transportation. In other words, everybody qualifies except for everybody. I suspect that if someone wants to qualify, they will have to apply for a special carve-out at the Major Projects Office. Maybe companies that have employees on their payroll can get themselves a tax carve-out. Everyone else will be paying more, will be filling out more forms and will be burdened with even more costs.

The only thing worse than the Prime Minister cooking the financial books is his cooking of the books on immigration. We know that he did that last year when he claimed that the population of Canada was 300,000 fewer people than it actually was. We have to wonder: Is it incompetency or is it dishonesty that would have the government lose track of 300,000 people?

Today, yet again, the Prime Minister used a side window to increase the number of people who can come in through new programs who are not counted by existing ones. New Canadians and those born and raised here, both of them, deserve an immigration system that works. We need to ensure that we always have housing, health care and jobs by getting immigration back under control.

We presented the Prime Minister with a plan to save Canadians money. It started by cutting waste. We proposed approximately $200 billion in savings by cutting bureaucracy, consultants, foreign aid and corporate welfare, as well as by cancelling the Alto project. That project is a waste of money that will only serve to line the pockets of Liberal friends.

We proposed these cost-saving measures to reduce the size and cost of government, which weighs heavily on small and medium-sized businesses and ordinary Canadians, like the single mother I spoke about or the young men who want to own a home. We proposed eliminating all taxes on fuel to save 20¢ a litre at the pump and reduce the cost of all products arriving by truck. We asked that the Prime Minister at least keep the election promise he made a year and a half ago to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. However, the Prime Minister rejected these proposals and jeopardized our financial system. We will continue to fight for Canadians.

I would like to share a message of hope with everyone: It is not too late. We can still change the budget. We can replace this credit card budget with one that will save Canadians money. However, that is if and only if the government is prepared to agree to our amendment, which we are proposing in good faith. With this amendment, we will save Canadians money and fill our country with hope.

We put forward a plan that would have saved Canadians money by cutting waste, by getting rid of all taxes on gas and by reducing the debt-to-GDP ratio, as the Prime Minister had promised. We put forward a clear plan to save money by cutting bureaucracy, consultants, foreign aid and handouts to fake and phony refugees, and by cutting back on corporate welfare, money that is going to the little club of Liberal insiders, like those at Telesat, one of whom is the Prime Minister's very close personal friend, whom he helped out with a $2.5-billion handout. Yes, he did. I know he is getting very nervous and agitated about it today, just as he did earlier.

By stopping handouts to the big AI giants, which take tax dollars from single moms and small business people, and by cutting back the waste and corruption in the government, he could have taken up our plan to reduce taxes, debt and inflation, but I bring to the government some hope. It is not too late. The Liberals can reverse their costly plan today. They can replace the costly credit card budget with a budget that saves Canadians money, if only they accept our amendment, our friendly amendment, which is brought forth in good faith. I know the Prime Minister will be glad to receive it, so I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

this House rejects the government's budget because:

(a) This costly credit card budget should be titled “Mastered by Debt”;

(b) it inflates the cost of gas, groceries, homes and interest;

(c) it fails to save Canadians money and instead costs them more;

(d) it fails to take all taxes off gas and diesel and instead raises taxes even further;

(e) it adds $765 billion in new borrowing over five years, totalling $44,000 per family;

(f) It increases the money spent on debt interest, more than what is spent on health care or the military, totalling $6,000 per family of four;

(g) it fails to keep the Prime Minister's promise to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio;

(h) it excludes major regional economic drivers like agriculture, forestry, minerals and fisheries from the capital gains tax exemption;

(i) it fails to reduce immigration targets to match the rate of growth in the number of houses, doctors, and jobs; and

(j) it fails to eliminate wasteful spending, increases spending on bureaucracy, consultants, corporate handouts, tax havens, foreign aid, deluxe benefits for false asylum claimants and the ALTO Rail boondoggle.

This is an amendment brought forward in good faith that will actually save Canadians money and fill this country with a sense of optimism, hope and freedom. I call on the Prime Minister to adopt this motion and put our country first.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will forgive me for not being filled with optimism and a sense of freedom after those remarks. One of the things missing from that speech is that not once, and I think we all suspect why, but not once did that leader acknowledge the unjustified and illegal trade war that has been inflicted on us by our neighbours to the south. We are responding by controlling the things we can control and building the things we can build, such as a pipeline to the west coast, a mega port, energy projects and renewable energy all over the country.

Does that leader consider those projects, that growth and the jobs that will come from those projects to be inflationary spending? Where is the vision? Where is the growth vision from that Leader of the Opposition? Where is his build Canada strong agenda?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, again they expect me to praise them for unkept promises. This is billions of dollars in promises that they have not realized. Speaking of the trade dispute, the Prime Minister promised he was going to have that resolved a year and a half ago, yet he has not achieved anything except seeing the American tariffs double and broaden on Canada. He has failed on his single biggest promise.

We understand that he is not in any personal rush to get the tariffs removed. After all, 91% of his personal investments are in the United States of America. While Canadians are losing jobs and paying higher prices here at home, he is unmoved to take real action. We will not take any lessons on patriotism from a prime minister who puts his money abroad while taxing Canadians here at home and making it unaffordable for them to live their lives. Our mission for this budget is to save money for Canadians here at home.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec asked Ottawa to increase its share of health care funding, but Ottawa reduced it. Quebec asked that the $700-million debt related to asylum seekers be repaid, but there is not a single word on the subject. We have a centralizing government that is meddling in this budget, with the electricity grid for example. Furthermore, there is an announcement regarding immigration targets on which Quebec was obviously not consulted.

According to the leader of the Conservative Party, why did this centralizing government refuse to listen to or negotiate with Quebec before drafting this budget?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Liberals are centralizers. They want to build a bigger, stronger and more costly state on the backs of Canadians and Quebeckers across Canada.

This is a $765-billion debt-financed budget. When billions of dollars are put on the national credit card, it drives up today's interest rates and inflation, as well as tomorrow's taxes. That is why this is one of the most costly budgets in our country's history.

They should have listened to our request to have a budget that would save Canadians money. That should have been the priority, and the Conservatives will continue to fight to lower the cost of living for Canadians.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the mental health crisis touches everyone in this place. It touches every single family in this country. We need a compassionate, coordinated response where help is ready when people are ready.

The Mental Health Commission of Canada puts the cost of mental illness at nearly $200 billion a year, or roughly 6% of our GDP.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that ensuring mental health and addictions care under our universal public health care system would cost the federal government an average of $4.9 billion a year. Instead, what does the government do? The Liberals chose to provide $36 billion in business tax incentives over the next five years instead of addressing this crisis.

Nation building is not just about what we build; it is about the people we invest in. Mental health is health.

Do the Conservative leader and his party support our call for parity so Canadians can get the care they need? They should be getting care with their health card, not their credit card. People need help now. This is a national crisis.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely right. There is a mental health crisis in this country. He mentioned credit cards. Let us be honest, the two are linked. When people are forced to put their groceries on their credit card, when they are plunging into their savings just to keep the heat on in the winter, when they are falling behind on mortgage payments and when one in three of them is skipping meals because they cannot afford to eat, do we think that does not affect someone's mental health? Of course it does.

There are two economies in this country. There is one for the suffering people who are overcome with the anxiety that they cannot get by and they worry about their children's future and one for the club of Liberal insiders who are looting the public treasury with the help and aid of the Prime Minister. It is time that we had one Canada for all Canadians, for the people who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules.

[Jacob Mantle, Conservative, York—Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised Canadians a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. He promised fiscal prudence, especially for the next generation.

Can the Leader of the Opposition tell me what the budget says? Did the Prime Minister keep that promise and will Canadians be spending more or less on debt?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no, the Prime Minister broke that promise. He said that he was going to reduce the debt-to-GDP ratio and it is actually rising. By the way, I should point out it is not as bad as it sounds; it is far worse, because the debt that is in fact calculated into the debt-to-GDP ratio does not include the hundreds of billions of dollars that he is keeping off the budget with unprecedented financial engineering.

This budget seeks to put $465 billion of off-budget spending on the backs of Canadians. In other words, two-thirds of the new debt the Prime Minister would add is unbudgeted and uncounted in the spending system. Just because someone gambles away a fortune in Vegas on the company credit card does not mean that somebody does not have to pay it back. Canadians are going to be stuck paying it back. It is time to take the load off the backs of Canadians and fight to save them money.

[Tatiana Auguste, Liberal, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, while we are stepping up to help young Canadians become masters of their own destiny and masters in their own home, the Conservatives seem to want to abandon them.

For once, can they put slogans and partisanship aside and stand up for our businesses, our workers and young Canadians?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member started off her statement with a slogan, then condemned the use of slogans. She said “masters in their own home”, then had the nerve to talk about young people.

How can young people be masters in their own home if they have no home of their own? Young Canadians cannot afford a home. In fact, Habitat for Humanity Canada surveyed 22 countries and found that Canada had the highest percentage of people who believe they will never own a home.

If the hon. member wants young people to be masters in their own home, she should adopt Conservative policies to build housing for young people so they can have a place to call home.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the scale of the deficit and the waste of public funds. However, a closer look at this budget shows that the government is continuing to hand out billions of dollars in subsidies, particularly for carbon capture projects undertaken by billionaire oil companies. While these companies continue to generate substantial profits, Canadians are paying nearly $2 a litre at the pump.

Does the Leader of the Opposition agree that the government should continue providing billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question once again because it is simple. The oil industry does not need subsidies. It is an exceptionally profitable industry that has no need for them.

That is true. If we remove government barriers from their path, oil companies can build pipelines, mines and natural gas liquefaction plants.

We need to do away with taxes and barriers and put an end to corporate handouts for all businesses in all sectors. That is the free enterprise we want to see.

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

Mr. Speaker, last year, the Minister of Finance, whom I would like to acknowledge, chose the title for his budget, and I guess he realized after tabling it that there was a translation error in the title of the French version. He had taken the English version and plugged it into Google Translate to translate the title. This year, the Liberals decided to ransack the history of the Quebec nation to find a new title for their budget, and they realized that there was no good English translation for “Maîtres chez nous”. I will be delighted to talk about that.

Earlier, I listened to the speech given by the minister, who certainly did not listen to the Government of Quebec. He told us that his party represents Quebeckers because there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. This is their cue to applaud. I will wait.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Jean‑Denis Garon]

I congratulate them, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why?

The Minister of Finance loves the history of the Quebec nation. In 1982, there were 74 Liberal members representing Quebec. They stood up and betrayed Quebec by voting for the Constitution put forward by Jean Chrétien, who is here on the Hill today. That is Liberal history. That is Liberal betrayal.

What are Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec seeing today? They are seeing that Quebec is the province that has been hit the hardest by tariffs, with 0% economic growth, rising inflation and rising interest rates.

What are Quebeckers saying? They are saying that the government needs to focus on Quebeckers' priorities and fund the health care system properly. They feel so strongly about it that Quebec's democratically elected government called for health transfers to be increased. When Quebeckers read this budget, they will understand that what the federal government is saying is that, as of next year, its refusal to increase transfers will cost Quebec's government, sick people and patients between $2.5 billion and $3 billion, even though Quebec was asking for the opposite.

Quebeckers know that the federal government owes Quebec $689.9 million for asylum seekers, and we know that the federal government is fully aware of this because it has already paid a very small portion of the bill. That money belongs to Quebeckers. That money was requested by Quebec's democratically elected government. It was not just the Government of Quebec that requested it. The National Assembly of Quebec spoke unanimously. Quebeckers will realize that the members on the other side of the House are great at applauding on cue, but not so great at supporting motions unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly.

The same goes for the $814 million for the phony carbon tax rebates. Quebeckers want the government to stop using Quebeckers' money to pay oil companies. That industry is not facing any tariffs. It is the Americans' favourite Canadian industry. Investors in the oil and gas industry are American, and the dividends from these Canadian oil companies go to the United States. Quebeckers wonder why the federal government is underfunding Quebec's health care system while sending their tax dollars to oil companies. That is what Quebeckers are thinking, regardless of how many Liberal members from Quebec there are here in the House.

Quebec's finance minister recently made some remarks. He is taking over the reins of public finances, and he said that the federal government's mega deduction will create a shortfall of more than $1 billion in Quebec's public finances, affecting its ability to fund services, and that it is a headache. Quebeckers know that they should listen to the Government of Quebec. They do not want the federal government to make this deduction a “giga” deduction and to rob Quebec of another $1 billion for the next fiscal year and beyond.

I am not talking about the quality of the deduction. I am not talking about whether or not it is appropriate to have accelerated depreciation. What I am saying is that, today, as I speak, Quebec's finance minister is finding out that, for the next fiscal year and beyond, he will have to cut $1 billion somewhere in Quebec, raise taxes or put future generations in debt because of these 44 members, who clap when they are congratulated for existing. That is exactly what we are seeing today.

The phrase “masters of our destiny” really does have a certain appeal. It is important to be the master of our own destiny. They like being masters of their own destiny. I understand why. In Quebec, we figured that out back in the 1960s. However, being masters of our destiny means not bowing down to President Trump when it comes to the digital levies.

There are American companies in Silicon Valley that do business in Canada and do not pay their fair share of taxes. Being masters of our destiny means the first thing we should want is a level playing field in terms of tax fairness among all companies, including those that are friends with President Trump. We should not back down on this.

When we talk about a global minimum tax, why should Americans and American companies get preferential treatment? Why is there a special arrangement for them?

Why are the Americans calling the shots here, or rather, why are they calling the shots over on that side of the House? That is a valid question.

Why do we have the same environmental policies as President Trump? Why are we backtracking?

Many members in that caucus across the aisle know how bad things are and realize that they are betraying their own principles. They know it and they say so. They are not being masters of their destiny. They are backing down. The government backed down on the digital services tax, the levies and the CRTC's decisions to please the U.S. President.

Quite apart from what Quebeckers might think, the title is garbage. It is very sad.

I want to come back to the issue of health care and services.

What is the Quebec government asking for? It wants an increase of at least 5% in health transfers after 2027-28. However, not only are we being told that funding will be reduced, but also that it will be unpredictable.

They will tell us they brought in a one-time transfer, that they renewed the mental health transfer. Sure, but they also devoted an entire section of the budget to explaining how they want to make the government more efficient. They are talking about Crown corporations and reducing the number of public servants. They want to cut 15%. Now they are even making cuts to the Translation Bureau staff working for the House of Commons.

When it comes to mental health transfers, they claim they want to make government more efficient. They are telling Quebec City that they intend to draw up sector-specific agreements and are asking for floors full of civil servants in Quebec City to manage those health care agreements.

If the government truly believes in those values and principles and wants to streamline government, those principles should apply at all times and in all circumstances. Efficiency is not achieved by Ottawa micromanaging provinces, centralizing everything and restricting the provinces' ability to act.

If the government genuinely believes in these principles and is in favour of efficiency, it should always be in favour of efficiency.

The government is intervening in the oil industry while refusing Quebec's demands. Perhaps it is because there is a legitimately elected sovereigntist government in Quebec City. The government says it wants to promote Canadian unity and is committed to that objective. In the past, that led to all sorts of scandals. We hope they do better than they have in the past.

It is almost like a bad movie that drags on and on, only to end on a flat note. They are bringing back Heritage Minutes. They are offering skating rinks for the 160th anniversary. The provinces asked for $100 billion in infrastructure over 10 years. The minister magnanimously gave them half of what they had asked for. I have nothing against skating rinks, though they are a municipal jurisdiction in a lot of ways, but the government is investing billions in promoting Canadian unity. These are not small amounts; it is spending billions of dollars.

The government is bringing back military history. Of course, Remembrance Day is fast approaching, and those who followed a higher cause and gave their lives or served in the military must be honoured in a strictly non-partisan way. However, do we have to bring back Stephen Harper's beloved War of 1812, like the government did in the budget? Give me a break.

I do not know whether the Liberals read it, because not all of them were at the lock-up, but I hope they get a chance to discuss it in caucus.

They went to the trouble of including in the budget their plans to review the standards for manufacturing the flag of Canada. The government has time on its hands and grand plans. I am not disputing the importance of this to the government, but I would love to see the government apologize to Quebeckers and explain that health transfers will have to wait until another day, another time, and their surgery will have to wait too because the government needs to review the Canadian flag manufacturing standards. I would love to see that.

Now I want to talk about airport privatization. The Prime Minister was in Antigua and Barbuda with Australian officials. Did he seal the deal to sell our airports to Australians? Will they release the white paper on airport management that the department is working on? Was Quebec consulted? Will the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec be able to participate? Do we have any information on that? Does the Government of Quebec have any information on that? Can we challenge the way airports are managed? That would be perfectly fine, since it is our job to do that. Airport authorities need to be consulted in some way. Airports are drivers of economic development, not just runways and infrastructure that transport people from point A to point B. Can we do that?

What we are witnessing is anything but a “masters of our destiny” approach. This is especially true if the rumours turn out to be true and Australian investment funds end up buying our airports. Those same investment funds drove up the cost of air travel in Europe. Is that the fate that awaits us? I would like to know more about how selling our strategic assets to foreigners makes us masters of our destiny.

There is also the public finances. According to the minister's bookkeeping, there is going to be a $4.4-billion net surplus of investments next year, but the debt will increase by almost $60 billion. The minister made up a new kind of investment that is not recognized by the private sector. He is trying to disguise his deficits. If someone tries to use this definition of “investment” in their financial statements, the Canada Revenue Agency will be all over them and they might end up in jail. If a business does something like that, it is called fraud.

What is in there? It is tax expenditures: 40% of the investments are deductions. Nothing of the sort exists anywhere else in the world. The Liberals say that it is done in England, in the U.K. and in Singapore, but it does not exist. They say these are investments, but there are no asset maintenance programs that take depreciation into account. When investments are made in assets, depreciation has to be taken into account. If these were investments, the Liberals would realize that there is nothing to maintain because there is no capital. That means these are not investments.

What is in there? They are listing the cost of spies for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, as investments. They are counting that as capital. The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun will like this. I know him and I know that he will like this. He comes from the private sector. He is looking at me skeptically. They want to pay CSIS spies to better protect the public against terrorism, espionage and other evolving threats, and they are listing that as an investment. They are not including the salaries of their public servants. They are making cuts everywhere. Public servants' salaries? Now that is a problem. They have reduction targets for the public service. They are saying that the people who will work for the new Crown corporations do not count. It is no big deal to hide that, and apparently the spies who work for CSIS are not even real people, based on the way the accounting is being done.

When we look at the public finances, we see that we are facing a deficit of over $60 billion. Basically nothing that the government is categorizing as an investment is actually an investment, simply because what the federal government considers capital is already accounted for in private sector accounting. We are talking about airports, ports and so on. The Minister of Transport knows that. The federal government basically has no public capital left.

The Liberals are going to tell us that everything is fine. Why are public finances better than they thought? Inflation, that is why. Inflation juiced government revenues this year. It provided a tiny, short-term band-aid. Then there is oil, which is doing extremely well. That is what saved them today.

This government loves to talk. Hardly any measures are listed at the end of the chapters, but there is no shortage of text, a true reflection of the Minister of Finance. When he bought his new shoes, I expect he said he wore size 58. He likes to indulge in verbal inflation. First, there was the superdeduction. This year, we have the mega deduction. We can only wonder what the next superhero will be called, maybe “batdeduction” or “spiderdeduction”. For equality's sake, it could well be a “wonderdeduction”. We can only wonder what they might come up with.

As for the structural measures that Quebec needs, ones that serve a purpose other than funding the oil industry, it is a drop in the bucket. They are going to talk to us about clean electricity. Their $50 billion is spread out through 2042. For clean electricity production over the next five years, there is $2.5 billion, but they have included gas and nuclear power in that figure. How much money has been allocated for clean electricity generation over the next two years? It is not $2 billion. It is not $1 billion. There is not a single cent set aside for clean electricity this year or next year. The Liberals took a whole host of measures that already existed, added them all up, lumped them all together, and now we are left with practically nothing for the next five years. Now they are travelling all over Canada saying the words “heat pump”. They are practising in front of the mirror, repeating “heat pump” over and over. They tell us there is $50 billion, but over the next five years, it is going to be $2.5 billion.

We were expecting some of these measures, like the GST credit, the credit for artists, the $600 million, but that does not negate the need for the digital levy. We recognize that these measures represent progress, and we think that is good. It is good that the government listened to our suggestions. I myself have had several conversations with the Minister of Finance.

It is important to understand that the Government of Quebec is no less legitimately elected. If anything, it is is even more legitimate, because it is our nation's parliament. The Liberal members believe that, because they were elected here, the Government of Quebec should take a back seat. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that, here in this Parliament, the voice of Quebec, no matter how many people represent it, must not be silenced in favour of a pan-Canadian partisan line. That is our job, it is the core of our efforts, and it is what we will do by voting against this budget.

Now, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan, I would like to move the following amendment to the amendment:

That the amendment be amended:

(a) by deleting paragraphs (a), (d) and (j); and

(b) by adding the following:

"(h) it reduces the health transfer escalator, which will significantly increase health care costs for the Government of Quebec and the provinces;

(i) it increases spending on federal propaganda by reinstating Heritage Minutes and wasting taxpayers' money on celebrations marking Canada's 160th anniversary;

(j) it acts irresponsibly by failing to take concrete action to combat climate change; and

(k) it fails to reimburse Quebec and the provinces for the increased costs associated with processing asylum claims.".

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The amendment to the amendment is in order.

The hon. member for Mont-Saint-Bruno—L'Acadie.