Debates of Feb. 25th, 2026

Questions on the Order Paper

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]

Motions for Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers also be allowed to stand at this time, please.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Riding Mountain, Mental Health and Addictions; the hon. member for Leduc—Wetaskiwin, Finance; the hon. member for York—Durham, Ethics.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

There are 82 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-15.

Motions Nos. 1 through 82 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.

I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 82 to the House.

Motions in Amendment

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 126.

Motion No. 2

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 127.

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 128.

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 129.

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 130.

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 131.

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 132.

Motion No. 8

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 133.

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 134.

Motion No. 10

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 135.

Motion No. 11

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 136.

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 137.

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 138.

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 139.

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 140.

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 141.

Motion No. 17

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 142.

Motion No. 18

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 143.

Motion No. 19

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 144.

Motion No. 20

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 145.

Motion No. 21

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 146.

Motion No. 22

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 147.

Motion No. 23

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 148.

Motion No. 24

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 149.

Motion No. 25

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 150.

Motion No. 26

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 151.

Motion No. 27

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 152.

Motion No. 28

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 153.

Motion No. 29

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 154.

Motion No. 30

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 155.

Motion No. 31

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 156.

Motion No. 32

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 157.

Motion No. 33

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 158.

Motion No. 34

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 167.

Motion No. 35

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 168.

Motion No. 36

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 169.

Motion No. 37

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 170.

Motion No. 38

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 171.

Motion No. 39

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 172.

Motion No. 40

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 173.

Motion No. 41

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 174.

Motion No. 42

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 175.

Motion No. 43

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 176.

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

moved:

Motion No. 44

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 191.

Motion No. 45

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 192.

Motion No. 46

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 193.

Motion No. 47

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 194.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 48

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 203.

Motion No. 49

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 204.

Motion No. 50

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 205.

Motion No. 51

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 206.

Motion No. 52

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 207.

Motion No. 53

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 208.

Motion No. 54

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 209.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 55

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 224.

Motion No. 56

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 225.

Motion No. 57

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 226.

Motion No. 58

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 227.

Motion No. 59

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 228.

Motion No. 60

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 229.

Motion No. 61

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 230.

Motion No. 62

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 231.

Motion No. 63

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 232.

Motion No. 64

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 233.

Motion No. 65

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 234.

Motion No. 66

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 235.

Motion No. 67

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 236.

Motion No. 68

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 237.

Motion No. 69

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 238.

Motion No. 70

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 239.

Motion No. 71

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 240.

Motion No. 72

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 241.

Motion No. 73

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 242.

Motion No. 74

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 243.

Motion No. 75

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 244.

Motion No. 76

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 245.

Motion No. 77

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 246.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

moved:

Motion No. 78

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 373.

Motion No. 79

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 374.

Motion No. 80

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 375.

Motion No. 81

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 597.

Motion No. 82

That Bill C-15 be amended by deleting Clause 598.

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are facing multiple overlapping crises, from difficulties finding affordable housing and buying groceries to feed their families, to a climate emergency that threatens our very planet. The budget was an opportunity to meet this moment. Unfortunately, in New Democrats' view, it has failed. In fact, it would actually reverse many measures the Liberals themselves told Canadians were essential just months ago.

New Democrats believe much more can and should be done to build a stronger, more prosperous and independent Canada that works for all Canadians. Accordingly, we proposed a number of amendments and changes to the budget to meet this objective. Today I will highlight those at report stage that relate to sections of the budget that we argue should be deleted.

First, the Liberals' decision to repeal the digital services tax would hand a major victory to U.S. tech giants at the direct expense of Canadian taxpayers and an even greater victory to Donald Trump. When the Liberals announced this measure in budget 2021, they described it as essential “to ensure that corporations in all sectors, including digital corporations, pay their fair share of tax on that money they earn by doing business in Canada.” Those are not my words. They are the words of the Liberal government. When the Trump administration objected, the Liberals pledged to abandon this measure immediately.

The digital services tax was specifically designed to ensure that the largest U.S. tech giants, companies like those led by Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, contribute fairly to the Canadian economy with the profits they make here from Canadians. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimated it would raise $7.2 billion over five years, revenue that could have supported public services, infrastructure and programs Canadians need and rely on. Instead, the Liberals caved to Donald Trump, walked away from billions in revenue and gave up a tool meant to level the playing field for Canadian businesses, all without negotiating a single benefit for Canada in return.

The result is that the Liberals are rewarding the biggest foreign tech corporations while eliminating tens of thousands of family-sustaining jobs and slashing services that Canadians rely on. New Democrats say that is the wrong way to go.

Second, the budget would repeal the underused housing tax during a housing crisis, which is a truly baffling decision. When this measure was first introduced, the Liberals described it as “a national, tax-based measure targeting the unproductive use of domestic housing that is owned by non-resident, non-Canadians”, arguing that it would ensure foreign owners who use Canada as a place to passively store wealth in housing “pay their fair share”. Again, it was the Liberals who said that, yet in this budget, the Liberals today wish to eliminate this measure entirely. I guess the development industry has gotten to them.

The PBO estimates the underused housing tax would raise $693 million over five years. Repealing it means we would be walking away from hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue that could be used to support truly affordable non-market housing, municipal infrastructure or other public priorities. It would also remove an important policy lever designed to discourage vacant foreign-investor-held properties at a time when Canadians are struggling with some of the worst housing affordability challenges in our country's history. This would encourage premises to stay vacant when renters are desperately in need of spaces to call home.

Third, while working-class Canadians are told by the government to make sacrifices, the government is proposing to repeal the luxury tax on private jets and yachts. The contrast could not be more glaring: austerity for working people, and tax breaks for those at the very top. It is also another total liberal backflip. In budget 2021, the Liberals argued that “Those who can afford to buy luxury goods can afford to pay a bit more”, especially at a time when ordinary Canadians were making sacrifices to keep our economy afloat post-COVID.

To New Democrats, that logic still holds, yet the Liberals are now abandoning the luxury tax on private jets and yachts entirely. Their justification is that the luxury tax costs more to administer than it brings in, but their own 2025 budget contradicts this claim. Eliminating the tax would cost $135 million over five years in lost revenue. Walking away from this revenue is a political choice, one that benefits the wealthiest in Canada, while the Liberal government eliminates tens of thousands of family-sustaining jobs and slashes services Canadians rely on because it claims to have a revenue problem.

What makes this decision even more troubling is that unions in the aviation and boating sectors have proposed practical solutions to address the potential industry impacts of this measure, not a full repeal of the luxury tax. Instead of listening to workers and refining the policy, though, the Liberals are listening to the ultrawealthy in this country and seeking to scrap it altogether. The result is a policy retreat that gives up hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, abandons an important tax fairness measure aimed at the ultrawealthy and ignores the constructive proposals put forward by workers and their unions who were ready to help improve the system rather than dismantle it.

Fourth, Bill C-15 contains a serious threat to Canada's democratic foundations. Division 5 of part 5 contains clauses that would grant federal ministers sweeping Henry VIII-style powers to temporarily exempt any individual corporation, individual, partnership, association or organization from the application of almost every federal law and regulation. Although the Liberals made a deal to accept Conservative amendments at committee to add some limited guardrails to these provisions, the core issue remains. This legislation would give ministers the extraordinary power to exempt specific people and corporations from federal laws and regulations. These exemptions could override labour standards, health and safety rules, environmental protections, indigenous rights and more. Even with the limited guardrails, the scope of potential exemptions remains incredibly expansive.

This undermines the separation of powers by allowing the executive to override laws passed by this Parliament without full transparency or accountability. These clauses do not streamline regulation, as has been claimed. Rather, they erode the rule of law and create a two-tier system where laws passed by Parliament can be suspended arbitrarily. Legal experts and civil liberties advocates maintain that this is not true regulatory sandboxing, as is claimed. They argue that even with the deal cut with the Conservatives, this approach is too broad and is less transparent than existing sandbox frameworks in other jurisdictions.

The NDP maintains that these clauses cannot be fixed through backroom deals between the Liberals and Conservatives. Indeed, the government still has not publicly justified why such extraordinary powers are necessary. Measures of this magnitude should not be buried in a 600-page omnibus budget bill, which Liberals themselves, in opposition, said they would not bring in. Once in government, it is a different story. If the Liberals believe these powers are essential, they should introduce stand-alone legislation that can be fully studied and debated transparently. To protect democratic governance, the rule of law and Canada's constitutional order, division 5 of part 5 should be removed from Bill C-15 entirely.

Fifth, clauses 373 to 375 of Bill C-15 would retroactively redefine “province” to exclude the territories in the veterans health care regulations as it relates to accommodation and meals payment by veterans in long-term care. In short, this would allow Veterans Affairs Canada to legitimize its past overcharges to veterans and nullify ongoing litigation aimed at securing reimbursement for affected veterans. Canada's Veterans Ombud, retired Colonel Nishika Jardine, has written to the Minister of Veteran Affairs asking that these provisions be removed from the bill. In her words, “using retroactive legislation to correct administrative errors is both inappropriate and unfair and undermines confidence in government decision-making”.

She continues:

Ultimately, it is clear to the Veteran community that Bill C-15 [changes] are meant solely to correct an error made by the Department and to deny [veterans] compensation for the overcharge. VAC already faces growing reputational backlash over the manner in which it communicates with Canada’s Veterans, their families and Survivors. I fear this retroactivity measure, if enacted, will only increase the deep distrust....

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

Mr. Speaker, it is significant for us to recognize that this particular budget reflects the last federal election. It reflects what the Prime Minister and members of the Liberal caucus have brought forward on behalf of our constituents.

This includes making the school food program permanent, ensuring the longevity of the dental care program and ensuring that we have the largest investment in expanding housing opportunities from coast to coast to coast. There are a lot of wonderful things in the budget. They are all meant to build Canada strong.

I would encourage all members of the House to see the value in the bigger picture on how this budget would make Canada a stronger and healthier nation.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. colleague brought up the last election. I do not recall the Liberals telling Canadians in the last election that if they were elected, they would cave to Donald Trump and remove the digital services tax. Frankly, the Liberals told Canadians they would have an elbows-up approach and take a firm stance with Donald Trump.

I do not recall the Liberals telling Canadians that they would get rid of the underused housing tax, which is a measure that is starting to work in this country; house prices are starting to come down. I do not recall the Liberals telling Canadians that they were going to hurt veterans by overcharging them for long-term care. They did not say those things.

There is a fundamental question of credibility raised by my hon. colleague. When parties tell Canadians something during an election, Canadians expect them to be true to it when they are in government. The Liberals are failing that test.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and friend for his excellent speech and congratulate him on it.

I would like to continue with the issue of taxing web giants. This is a matter of basic fairness. These multinationals use tax havens to avoid paying a single penny of taxes in Canada. The government had put in place a tax to offset that, but over the summer, the current Prime Minister said that he was going to put an end to all of this on the pretext that, as of July 21, Canada was going to have a new trade agreement with the United States to resolve tensions. That was on July 21, and the tax was not implemented. I was stunned to see this tax repealed in the budget and in Bill C-15. In my opinion, there is no reason for that.

My question is this: What message does this send to our international allies in countries that have implemented these taxes when they see Canada breaking ranks in this way and throwing itself into the arms of the American President?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for that excellent question. Much is raised by that question, including the proper approach to dealing with what we all agree is a difficult Donald Trump administration. Nevertheless, the Liberal government said it would stand up to the Trump administration, yet all we have seen is concession after concession, and we are getting nothing in return.

It raises the fundamental question of tax fairness. If we are not going to tax the largest, most profitable digital corporations in the world, U.S. tech giants that make hundreds of billions of dollars every year, then what message does that send to ordinary Canadians who the Prime Minister asked to tighten their belts? What message does it send to the 50,000 federal civil servants who are getting pink slips. and the tens of thousands more of their family members, because the government says it does not have enough money?

It sends the message that the government cares more about pleasing Donald Trump and pleasing U.S. tech giants than it does about fundamental fairness to Canadians in this country, and New Democrats—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for York—Durham.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned tax fairness in his most recent response. I am increasingly concerned with the tax unfairness being brought on by the Liberal budget. Canadians in the next generation will have to pay for every dollar that is borrowed.

Does the member think it is fair for the next generation to be saddled with the debts of this generation for their entire lives?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, no, I do not. The government has a revenue problem. Instead of cutting and slashing services that Canadians need at a time when we are facing crises, and I must respectfully say the Conservatives would slash even more, what we need to do is raise revenue in a fair and progressive manner.

That is why we should do things like tax yachts, private jets and U.S. tech giants, and make sure that the wealthiest pay a bit more. That is what the Liberals said was necessary before the last election, and it is something New Democrats believe in. We have a great country. We need to pay for the services Canadians—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues who are here today.

Today, we are debating Bill C-15, the budget implementation bill, which we are now considering at report stage. Believe it or not, some people are tuning in at home. I know a few of them. These people need to understand what the report stage is.

The 603-page budget contains a great many things that will be toxic for Quebec, toxic for some of our industries, toxic for co-operatives like Desjardins, and toxic for farmers. When a budget is this toxic, amendments are put forward at committee. The committee met on Monday. Sometimes, people think that the work is over after the committee stage, but the reality is that we still get one last chance to make this inadequate budget a little less bad or a little better. The last chance that we get, the final opportunity, is now, the report stage. The report sets out the amendments, but we can still change them.

What happened at the committee meeting that took place on Monday under a closure motion is inexplicable. Some parts of the bill should have been changed by consensus. Lessons were offered and explanations were given, but no one was willing to listen. I will give the example of the high-speed rail network act.

The part of the budget containing the high-speed rail network act gives powers to an operator that is basically doing the government's dirty work, but without being subject to scrutiny by the Auditor General or the Parliamentary Budget Officer. The operator is being given excessive expropriation powers. It will be allowed to violate the rights of people whose property will be expropriated for the rail project, including rights that all other Canadians continue to have. This will create second-class citizens along the rail corridor.

The government says the same thing was done in Quebec for the Réseau express métropolitain, or REM. However, Quebec's REM network is only a few dozen kilometres long. Its tracks curve, it can use existing rights-of-way, it does not go by as many homes and it has stops everywhere and creates benefits along almost every kilometre of track. However, the federal government is taking that remedy and applying it to the wrong problem. It is applying it to a network that is completely different. This network is 1,000 kilometres long. It cannot use existing rights-of-way in many cases, it does not curve and it hardly stops anywhere, yet the government says that the same remedy is being applied.

People are being stripped of their right to challenge expropriations before a hearing officer. Hearings are an alternative mechanism that help avoid mass challenges before the Federal Court. This means we could end up with 1,000 kilometres' worth of property owners going to the Federal Court, at a time when the government is struggling to appoint judges.

What were our amendments? They sought to allow people who receive an expropriation notice to request a hearing before a hearing officer within 30 days, as is the law for all Canadians. The Conservatives abstained from voting on this amendment and allowed the Liberals to create two classes of citizens, particularly in my riding, in Mirabel. My constituents went through expropriations once before. Abstaining is not an option when it comes to equality before the law. Abstaining is not an option. This time, we want members to vote in the House.

We also wanted people who receive an expropriation notice to be allowed to rebuild a cattle shed, a barn or other agricultural facilities following a disaster. Here is what the current bill would do. If the path of the high-speed train crosses so much as a corner of a person's farm and their cattle shed burns down, they are not allowed to rebuild it.

My friend Éric Couvrette is tuning in today. The summer before last, Éric's cattle shed burned down to the ground. He lost all his cattle and his entire livelihood to the fire. It is a tragedy that everyone in Mirabel knows about. He could no longer make a living. Under the current bill, if the high-speed train crosses the end of his property, even if it is nowhere near the cattle shed, he would not have the right to rebuild it. The people in my riding will understand what that means. People living in agricultural areas will understand the seriousness of what the government is doing. That is why we wanted to fix that.

What did the government tell us? It said that it was going to compromise and allow people to rebuild in the event of a natural disaster, but even that was too much. The Liberals withdrew their own amendment and, in the end, they said that, if there was a fire, tornado or flood, the poor souls could not rebuild and would have to declare bankruptcy. That is the Liberals' approach to equality before the law. We wanted to fix that. The amendment that we are tabling today gives the Conservatives and the Liberals one last chance to show a little compassion, respect and concern for equality among citizens.

We also wanted to give people back the 30-day period for appealing to a hearing officer. Alto is lying to people. Alto says that it is not true that people will no longer have 30 days to appeal the decision to a hearing officer if their land is expropriated. However, if there is no hearing officer anymore, then what is the point of the 30-day period? We want to give people back those rights. More importantly, we want to ensure that, if a person's land is expropriated, it cannot be done by email by default. What we are saying is that, if people want to communicate with Alto by email, they should be free to do so, but it must be at their request. It should not be up to Alto to be so magnanimous that it decides to send people registered letters the day their land is being expropriated. To me, that does not seem like too much to ask.

We also want the digital services tax to be reinstated. Do my colleagues know what that is? The NDP member was very diplomatic. The elimination of the digital services tax was just a way of sucking up to Donald Trump. The Prime Minister woke up one morning and decided to kowtow to the President in the hope that this would serve him well, but in the end, it did not. He lost out on $1 billion in revenue a year. Meanwhile, the privately owned media sector is in crisis because its content is being stolen by the big platforms, yet the minimum tax on multinationals has been scrapped and they are getting a free pass in Canada as if it were no big deal. There is nothing for our media at a time when the media is in crisis. We want that to be fixed. We want that tax to be reinstated.

We want the deficiencies in the open banking system, or consumer-driven banking, to be fixed. In the bill, the government wanted to regulate not only banks, which are federally regulated, but also digital brokers, which are considered retailers and fall under the legislative purview of Quebec and the provinces. This means that the federal government wants to tell Desjardins Group what to do. It wants to tell institutions that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction what to do. Obviously, it is not just Quebec. Albertans would also be affected. Alberta has ATB Financial, or Alberta Treasury Branches, formerly known as Alberta's Public Bank. However, it is not really a bank, so much so that the federal government went after it, demanding that it change its name. The federal government was trying to regulate a branch of the Alberta government. Some amendments did get adopted, but one has yet to be adopted. That is the amendment that says that if there is a dispute over jurisdiction and the federal government wants to regulate these brokers, there will be another problem, namely the minister's obligation to meet with their provincial counterparts to ensure the matter does not end up at the Supreme Court and the banking system can truly be open. Well, guess what? The Liberals voted against that. That is what I mean when I say that this is toxic for the provinces. In this case, modernity is not exclusive to the federal government. Brokers do not manufacture financial products and are not federally regulated.

Let us talk about the red tape reduction act. Regulatory sandboxes are fine, but there are models of them around the world. These models do not all give any minister, in any sector, the right to suspend just about anything, giving the executive branch lots of latitude to determine the road map for verifying that process. This is a violation of Parliament's prerogative. There was a compromise. The Liberals struck a deal with the Conservatives. However, as has been said before, this does not protect the environment, first nations or workers. We want to fix that. That part of the bill needs to be thrown out and redone, as we do with anything that deserves to be thrown out.

As members can see, we are being constructive. We want to make this budget less toxic. We are proposing constructive changes, and we are reintroducing these amendments because we believe that even people with a negative attitude, as we are currently seeing across the way, can change their minds and start thinking positive.

[Caroline Desrochers, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear the Bloc Québécois member using fear tactics. These are the same tactics used by the Conservative Party. What surprises me even more is the absolutely inappropriate language he used and the context in which he used it.

I am not sure whether the member feels that, because there are not many members who speak French in the House right now, he can say things that are clearly inappropriate. Still, I invite him to apologize and withdraw some of his remarks.

He is still talking about expropriation. That legislation was passed. We talked about that. He knows full well that the laws governing the high-speed train and the laws on expropriation have changed significantly and are no longer the same as they were in 1969, so this is frankly unbelievable.

As a Quebecker, I have always been very proud of my province's forward-thinking policies. I am curious as to why the member does not support the policies we are putting forward, like the Canadian dental care plan and the national school food program, for which—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I must give the hon. member time to respond.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is hard not to respond politely to someone who is so pleasant and constructive and who contributes so positively to parliamentary debate. I commend my colleague for her constructive tone. She is being very pleasant today. I want to commend her. This is good.

The Prime Minister decided to suck up to the U.S. President. What else can I say? That is what he did. He kowtowed. What—