Debates of Feb. 26th, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will note upfront that I will be splitting my time.

It is always an honour, of course, to rise in the House and speak on behalf of the great people of Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.

At second reading of this bill, I spoke about affordability, housing, groceries and mortgages, but this afternoon I want to speak about something deeper, the foundation beneath it all: our economy. If a country cannot build, cannot attract investment, cannot grow productivity, then everything else becomes harder. That is exactly where Canada finds itself today.

Budget 2025 would add $321 billion to the national debt over the next five years. It would spend $55.6 billion on debt interest next year alone, which is more than we spend on health transfers to the provinces and more than the GST revenue collected. For all of this spending, Canada's GDP growth is projected at just 1.1%, the second-lowest in the G7. That is according to the OECD. Canada is on track to have the worst economic growth of all 38 advanced economies through 2060. It is dead last.

Canada's business investment per worker remains significantly below those of its peer OECD economies, and the gap is widening. Canadian firms invest less in machinery, technology and innovation per employee than their counterparts in other advanced economies. At the same time, new capital per worker in Canada is only about 66¢ for every dollar seen by workers in other OECD economies, a stark symptom of weaker long-term competitiveness. This is not just a blip. It is a structural decline, and budgets like this do nothing to reverse it.

Eight months ago, Parliament passed Bill C-5. As a member of the transport and infrastructure committee, I stood in the House three times and spoke in support of it. It was sold to Canadians as nation building, a turning point, a faster approvals regime and a new era of major projects, but eight months later what has actually been built? What major project has broken ground because of Bill C-5? What strategic corridor has been accelerated? What transformational piece of infrastructure is visibly under way? Canadians are still waiting.

Meanwhile, in Europe, when governments decided energy security was a national priority, Germany built a major LNG terminal in roughly seven months, Italy built the Genoa bridge in just over a year, Finland completed construction of its Inco facility in about four months, and the Netherlands brought its Eemshaven LNG terminal online in about six months. When these countries decided something mattered, they built it. Here in Canada, we pass bills, we hold press conferences, we have photo ops, and we announce frameworks, but we have not built anything. Eight months after passing Bill C-5, Canadians are still waiting.

In 2023, members of the transport and infrastructure committee conducted a national study on large port infrastructure expansion projects. We toured ports from coast to coast, and we heard clearly that we need faster approvals, greater financial flexibility and the removal of structural bottlenecks. That was three years ago. Today, we are hearing the same complaints. Nothing has changed. The Canada port authorities model is supposed to provide operational independence, yet federal constraints limit agility and competitiveness. They limit the ability to respond to global trade shifts, and we cannot move goods efficiently through our ports if we cannot compete.

The budget talks about investing in infrastructure, including ports and economic corridors, but the actual legislation before us contains no specific reforms to enable Canada's port authorities to operate with true agility or competitiveness. It does not remove constraints, modernize governance or give them new tools to respond faster to shifts in global trade. Even as the government talks about nation building, the bill does nothing to unlock the capacity of our ports.

Let me also talk about steel. Steel is not abstract. Steel is Hamilton. Steel is jobs. Steel is national capacity. In 2024, I filed an Order Paper question asking how much of the federally funded infrastructure in Canada uses Canadian steel. The response came back, and I was astonished to learn that the government did not even track that data. The government could not tell us how much of our own infrastructure spending was using Canadian steel production. That is billions of dollars with no central tracking. If we do not measure it, we cannot manage it.

Unsatisfied with this answer, I took it to committee. I asked the president of Alto how much Canadian steel was going to be used if the project were to proceed. Would it be tracked? Would it be reported? The answer was that it could result in 600,000 tonnes of steel, but we do not produce the right type of steel in Canada. That should not be foreign steel.

I asked the transportation minister if he would make the same commitment, to track not just steel but any Canadian content in all projects under his department. To his credit, he said that he would commit to reporting the volumes, the value and the origin of Canadian materials used in future projects and report that back publicly to Parliament. However, here is the problem. Why did it take pressure through Order Paper questions and committee hearings to get there? Why are we not tracking Canadian content as a standard practice? If we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on infrastructure, Canadian workers should be part of that story.

Let me offer a contrast. The Hamilton International Airport, which is located in my constituency, is a success story. It is now Canada's largest overnight express cargo airport. In 2024, it handled over 750,000 kilograms of cargo. As a result of private sector commitment to that airport, it was able to secure a long-term investment. It continues to grow. It supports jobs, it strengthens supply chains, and it connects southern Ontario to global markets.

In fact, to give an example, DHL Express operates cargo across the world. Hamilton airport is its fourth-largest-volume facility in the entire world. The largest is in Hong Kong, then Leipzig, Germany, then Cincinnati, Ohio, and then Hamilton, Ontario. That is the result when there is a positive private sector investment that actually creates jobs and success. Completed in 2021, that particular facility met its five-year volumes in one year.

That is what trade-enabling infrastructure looks like. It is succeeding in spite of the endless red tape. Imagine a national infrastructure system that worked with the same real urgency. Imagine if approvals were predictable, if capital felt welcomed, if projects moved from announcement to construction to completion. That is how we reverse this productivity decline in our economy, how we attract investment and how we grow our economy.

Canada should be the easiest place in the world to build responsibly. We have skilled workers. We have resources. We have stable institutions. What we lack is urgency. The budget continues the pattern: high spending, high debt, low growth and no structural reform.

Nearly a year after the government was elected, Canadians still do not see the breakthrough that was promised. As long as investment lags, approvals stall and productivity falls, living standards will continue to erode. Canadians are not asking for miracles. They are asking for a government that understands that prosperity comes from building, producing and competing, not just borrowing and hoping.

Conservatives believe in clearing the bureaucracy that blocks projects, ensuring Canadian workers benefit from Canadian infrastructure, strengthening our ports and trade corridors, restoring fiscal discipline so capital flows back to Canada and rebuilding confidence that this country can once again get things done. On every one of those measures, the budget comes up short.

Ten years ago, Canada was described as having the richest middle class in the world. In fact, commentators noted that in 2014 the Canadian dream had replaced the American dream, after 10 years of Conservative government and strong fiscal management. That was not an accident. That was a result of discipline, investment and policies that rewarded work and encouraged growth. Today, the middle class is feeling squeezed. Stagnation should not be a destiny. With the right leadership, fiscal discipline and a government that understands that prosperity comes from building, Canada can again have the richest middle class in the world. With a new government, it will.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to follow up on a statement the previous speaker made, the member for Richmond—Arthabaska. He made the statement that in certain situations, which he described, the Conservatives do not have any problem with renewing temporary work permits.

Can the member give us a clear indication of whether the member for Richmond—Arthabaska was correct in his assessment of the Conservative Party's position, that it is prepared to allow temporary permit workers to remain in Canada after the visas have expired?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to speak on behalf of my colleague. What I will note, as I said in my speech, is that we had the richest middle class in the world 10 years ago, when we had an economy that was attracting investment from around the world. Prosperity is the answer to all of our issues.

The member opposite is part of a government that said no to Germany and Japan when they came for Canadian LNG. Germany built the facility, as I said in my speech, in seven months, and we lost the opportunity to diversify our trade, create those jobs and steal other jobs for all Canadians.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to something that was said in the previous speech by the member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

I want to ask my colleague from Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North a question, because what was said was rather surprising. The member for Richmond—Arthabaska criticized the Liberal government because of measures implemented in the fall of 2024 that led to drastic changes for entrepreneurs and SMEs in Quebec's regions in terms of temporary foreign workers. He says that a grandfather clause must be introduced for people who are already here.

However, the Conservative leader said that temporary foreign workers are the reason young Canadians here are unemployed and cannot find work, so the program should be scrapped.

Does my colleague agree with his leader, or does he agree with the member for Richmond—Arthabaska?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that we should create prosperity for young Canadians so they can actually have jobs. That is what Canadians had 10 years ago. After 10 years of a Conservative government, youth unemployment was not at the skyrocketing levels we are seeing now, and that is not fair. As well, 10 years ago, the average monthly mortgage payment on the average house in Canada was $1,432. The average rent was $973. Young people could go to school, save up, buy a home and start a family.

That was the Canadian dream. That is why we were the envy of the world and had the richest middle class. That does not exist anymore after 10 years of the Liberals. Conservatives will work to restore that dream and that promise.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague can reflect on a report that came out today that says one in four Canadians now works for government, whether that be the federal government, provincial governments, municipal governments or the public service.

The member reflected upon the middle class getting weaker. While the government is bloating up and expending, none of these dollars seems to reach everyday Canadians. Can the member reflect upon that in this budget?

[Dan Muys, Conservative, Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question because that is the point. The reason we are now among the worst-performing economies in the G7 and the OECD, which we were not 10 years ago, is that we have the lowest private sector investment in our economy in the world. When we do not create the conditions for the private sector to invest here, investment will elsewhere. Capital is global, and we have seen that time and time again.

If we want to make sure we have opportunities for Canadians, we can do better than having one in four working for the government. We can provide excellent opportunities in the private sector so Canadians can prosper, save up, buy a home and live the Canadian dream.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate and discussions on Bill C-15. I would like to focus briefly on the issue of the digital services tax, which I feel is very important, particularly for the cultural and media sectors. We have discussed it at length. I think it is important to highlight the significant consequences of abolishing this tax.

First and foremost, it is important review the context and acknowledge that, in order for the government to address a problem and find solutions to it, the government must first recognize that a problem exists. The government must acknowledge the problem, take note of it, analyze it and then put measures in place to address it and correct it to the greatest extent possible.

That is what this government and governments around the world have done. Take, for example, the OECD, which set up a working group a few years ago to study the issue of digital giants, the so-called GAFAM, and their impact on the public finances of the various countries in which they operate. The OECD looked into this. Many countries, including the European Union and Australia, which we have also talked a lot about, have legislated on tax issues relating to digital giants.

In 2024, Canada took a step in the right direction. Not only did it recognize that there was a situation that warranted its attention, but it also introduced the Digital Services Tax Act. Subsequently, as we know, it introduced the much-talked about digital services tax, a tax aimed at correcting the kind of tax inequity involving multi-billion dollar companies, generally American, that are making a fortune here in Canada by flooding our devices and our cultural market with content. In the vast majority of cases, this content is in no way representative of the cultural fabric of Quebec and Canada and, by extension francophone culture. I am particularly concerned about that.

The purpose of the digital services tax was to address this inequity and bring some fiscal accountability with regard to these businesses. The revenue that could have been generated from this tax was estimated at $7.2 billion over five years. Let us be conservative and say $1 billion, $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion in revenue per year. In our opinion, that was great news, except for the caveat that it was not directly intended to support the cultural and media sectors. Still, that money could have been well spent. It could have been added to the public purse and ultimately used to support those sectors.

We were all there just over a year ago when President Trump returned to the White House in the United States with his rhetoric, threats and tariffs. We saw all of the instability he was causing, not only in his own country, but also here and around the world. We needed some bargaining power. We needed to show Canada's goodwill. To that end, the Prime Minister made what I believe was a highly questionable decision. He decided to bend the knee, take his spine and stick it in a drawer, and do away with the digital services tax, hoping that would make Donald think he was a nice, easygoing, understanding, co-operative guy. He did away with a tax that Donald Trump hates because it penalizes the American companies that provide him with such generous support. Perhaps the Prime Minister thought that Donald would surely be convinced to strike a good deal with his dear friend, the Prime Minister of Canada, and scrap the tariffs. The Prime Minister thought that everything would work out. However, that is not what happened at all. The American President watched him do it. He did not react. He did not bat an eye. He did not lift a finger, and everything continued to go as badly as it had been going for months.

The Prime Minister did not consider that, by abolishing the tax on digital services, he was eliminating a potential revenue stream of over $1 billion per year that could have been used to save the cultural and media sectors of Quebec and Canada. If he had, he might have decided to reinstate it, but no, he decided to let it go.

The government introduced Bill C-15, and we thought that common sense would prevail and that the minister would decide to reinstate the tax, not eliminate it. By retaining this one tool, or the possibility of implementing it, he would have had leverage for his discussions with the American President when it came time to negotiate CUSMA.

At that point, we could have extracted major concessions had we had something worthwhile or a bargaining chip. However, the government decided to abolish that tax.

What does that mean? That means that our media, particularly regional news outlets, remain in the extremely precarious situation that they have been in for years without any glimmer of hope from the government that they might be rescued from their current predicament.

There was a measure proposed by the Bloc Québécois. In addition to preserving the digital services tax and turning it into a levy that would have been used exclusively to save and support the cultural sectors and the media, we asked that electronic news media outlets, namely radio and television, be granted the same tax credit that print media outlets already get. This is something that electronic news media outlets have been actively calling for. Newspaper newsrooms receive a payroll tax credit that gives them a bit of breathing room in an environment that is extremely competitive, extremely volatile and extremely difficult for them financially. Radio and television media are saying that they too have extremely expensive newsrooms to operate and that they should have the same privilege and right.

This is something that these media outlets have long been asking for, and the Bloc Québécois has supported it from the beginning. We even included it in our 2025 election platform. The Liberals refused to listen and rolled out a budget with hundreds of millions of dollars for culture that they have been bragging about, but there is nothing in the budget for these media outlets. The budget does not even include this small, inexpensive measure, this payroll tax credit for radio and television newsrooms. There has been complete radio silence on that front.

We can see that this government lacks the will to truly walk the talk. We hear it saying that the media is important, that news is important, but yet it is failing to implement small, simple measures. It is also failing to implement major measures, like the digital services tax, or DST, which could have been transformed into a levy and would have been extremely beneficial. I would remind the House that this tax would have provided a great deal of support for the cultural and media sectors. When it came time to put these measures in place, once again, the government failed to listen. That is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because we are missing a great opportunity to help an extremely disadvantaged sector.

In my opinion, there are serious problems with news coverage in regional communities in Quebec and Canada. Companies in the business of delivering regional reporting, of covering our regional realities, are finding it increasingly difficult to do so. Covering only big cities and national and international issues is not enough. We also need coverage of what is happening here at home, of our own realities, of what makes our regions tick, but these companies are finding it increasingly difficult to cover those things. Businesses and media are struggling. They have to make cuts. They have to cut positions, and reporters' positions are often the ones to go.

I was very relieved and pleased to hear CBC's announcement in January and Radio-Canada's more recent announcement about the creation of new journalist positions at regional stations. CBC/Radio-Canada is creating 29 new positions in Quebec and about 30 in the rest of Canada. I think that is good news, obviously, because CBC/Radio-Canada is our public broadcaster, and its mandate is to cover news everywhere, all across the country. However, CBC/Radio-Canada should not be the only media outlet with the means to do that. It should not be the only media outlet available in those parts of the country. People everywhere need diverse news sources.

In closing, I want to come back to the digital services tax. I believe that it was a mistake and an enormous lack of political courage on the government's part not to have kept the tax in place simply because Uncle Donald was not happy with it. At some point, the Liberals need to grow a backbone that is strong enough to withstand anything and that will not turn to jelly when the wind howls a little too much or when Uncle Donald blusters and sends out a mean tweet at two a.m. after a couple of burgers.

It takes courage, and this tax was a show of courage and a willingness to stand up for ourselves. Most of all, it maintained some leverage for the upcoming CUSMA negotiations. However, the Liberals are basically tipping their hand to Donald. We will pay the price at some point, and so will our media.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the importance of consistency, but I am having a hard time understanding. If consistency is really that important, why do people say it is important to invest in infrastructure in Quebec, such as the Magdalen Islands airport runway, the Forillon shipyard in Gaspé and the Exploramer shark pavilion in Saint‑Anne‑des‑Monts? These projects are important to Quebeckers.

There are also housing needs. The federal government and the Government of Quebec have just agreed on a framework for the construction of affordable housing in Quebec. These are priorities for the people my colleague says he wants to represent in the House. However, he is voting against those projects.

I would like to know why he is opposed to them.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's question, even though we have heard the same damn arguments from the start. The Liberals do not seem to have very many other examples with which to counter the Bloc Québécois's arguments, but that is all right. I respect my colleague's points.

I just want to say that, because the federal government was dragging its feet, it took two years to negotiate the housing agreement that my colleague mentioned in his question. It took so long to negotiate that by the time the agreement was finally signed in January, it was too late for Quebec to get the funds to which it was entitled.

The Liberals need to be careful about which examples they choose to give and they should maybe switch things up now and then.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I would like to know whether “damn arguments” is a parliamentary term.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order.

It is hard to say whether that is a parliamentary term. However, it is important that everyone use respectful language in the House.

The hon. member for Drummond is rising on a point of order.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the word may have been borderline in terms of acceptable language, but regardless, it was unnecessary and my colleague was right to bring it up.

I apologize. I would like to withdraw that word from my response, because it was not at all necessary given the context.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member for Drummond and the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the substance rather than the form, unlike some of my colleagues.

I really liked my colleague's speech. Obviously, he focused on something that affects him personally: the vitality of the media and the digital services tax. He is responsible for that file.

I would like my colleague to explain something related to the Prime Minister's famous speech in Davos. Everyone praised him for it. In that speech, he said it was important to stand up to powers that are currently causing more instability in the world. He said it was important to have reliable, secure allies and to stand up to the ones causing instability.

Can my colleague reconcile what was said in Davos and what the government is currently doing with regard to the web giants?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean really hit the nail on the head. I emphasized this point in my speech, but it bears repeating. It is important to stand up for what we believe in, defend our position and back up our words with action. The speech at Davos was inspiring. However, that speech is over, the government is not standing up in the face of adversity and we are no further ahead. The government is not doing more, so it is losing credibility.

I think it shows a lack of courage to say that we need to stand up to adversity and yet come back here and fail to implement a strict regulatory tax framework for multi-billion dollar corporations that are getting rich off the backs of Canadians. There is still time to fix that, though.

There is nothing stopping the Prime Minister from implementing very strict tax measures for all businesses and creating fairness in this market. That has been a long time coming.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is in regard to the significant investments that are going into Quebec. I am thinking of the port of Montreal. Literally thousands of people are being affected. It is a wonderful development. We now also have the high-speed rail. If we put it in the perspective of investment, these are significant investments, and I believe that the people of Quebec would actually support them.

Could he provide his thoughts on those two issues?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to invest, and that is the federal government's job. It is wonderful to talk about the high-speed rail project. My colleague from Mirabel has been talking about it for weeks. People in his riding and in other ridings that the high-speed train will traverse are concerned, very worried, afraid and angry, and we understand why. I think this is a good example of how the federal government has money but is out of touch when it comes to managing projects. It should hand these projects over to the appropriate authorities. At the very least, it should conduct adequate consultations to prevent tragedies like what happened in 1970 from happening again in Mirabel and to prevent families from being torn apart. It will take generations for people to recover from those brutal expropriations. I believe my colleague from Mirabel has already talked about this at length.

I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for raising this issue, particularly the high-speed rail issue given the current context.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley.

Our objective with budget 2025 is clear: We want to make Canada's economy stronger and more resilient. The first step is to work on our own economy, here in Canada. After taking office, we started by removing interprovincial trade barriers at the federal level. We introduced a buy Canadian policy in our budget because we know that we have to be our own best customer. The Government of Canada has tremendous purchasing power, and we have to use it to stimulate our economy and support Canadian companies.

In budget 2025, we are also introducing a set of tax incentives to boost productivity. We want to encourage Canadian businesses to invest in new equipment right away. The message we are sending is that now is the time to invest in Canada. We have also enhanced certain incentives, such as the business research and development program. I have visited a number of businesses in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche that are benefiting from this program. It is amazing to see the opportunities, especially when it comes to developing new products and penetrating new markets. Businesses might have a product that meets 90% of a potential customer's needs. Work-integrated research opens up new possibilities.

However, we have heard that the program can be problematic in terms of red tape. In budget 2025, we are addressing these issues. We will improve the program to make it easier for businesses to use, because we want to see businesses spending more time innovating and less time dealing with red tape.

Also, in the budget, we see consistency across the various investments that we are making to meet our priorities, because we are working to link this to our mandate of strengthening the Canadian economy. I will give a few examples.

We are launching Build Canada Homes, an investment of more than $13 billion for the construction of housing here at home. With Build Canada Homes, we will promote the use of Canadian materials, such as softwood lumber. This will help us meet the need for housing while boosting our economy and supporting businesses here at home. It is somewhat the same with the defence industrial strategy. We have committed to significantly increasing defence spending, given the current context. We will do so in a way that supports businesses.

Internationally, strengthening the Canadian economy also involves diversifying our markets. The budget contains various incentives and measures to support Canadian companies looking to break into new markets around the world. The government is working hard to attract foreign investment and sign new trade agreements with countries around the world. In fact, Canada is the only G7 country to have a free trade agreement with every other G7 country. This is just the beginning.

When we talk about supporting innovation to increase productivity, that translates into investments in our regions, including the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. Last week, I had the immense pleasure of announcing up to $1 million in federal government support for three maple syrup producers in my riding through the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency. The funding announced last week will primarily go toward modernizing these maple syrup producers' infrastructure to make it more productive, notably through the purchase of new reverse osmosis systems and automated systems to help detect leaks in the forest. This announcement was particularly important to me because the maple syrup industry is integral to my riding's economy. New Brunswick is the world's second-largest producer of maple syrup, and 80% of the syrup produced in my province comes from Madawaska—Restigouche. This is a direct investment in a key sector of the economy of the rural communities that I represent here in Ottawa.

In addition to the economic benefits, maple syrup is culturally important in my region, as we are very proud of the syrup produced in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. Maple syrup production is also a skill that is passed down from generation to generation. In fact, of the three sugar bushes I visited last week, one was recently handed down to the next generation, and another is run by a father and son. This is a sector that is well established, both economically and culturally, and that is part of the history of the Madawaska—Restigouche riding.

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all producers and workers in the industry a successful maple syrup season. We know that preparations are coming to an end. The tapping is almost done, and sugaring season is just around the corner.

I am the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, a riding that is more than 80% francophone. In fact, my riding has the second-highest percentage of francophones outside Quebec.

As the member for Madawaska—Restigouche and an Acadian MP, I consider official languages to be a very important issue. In budget 2025, we are doubling funding for National Acadian Day and making that funding permanent. In addition, we are continuing to implement the action plan for official languages 2023-2028. I would like to remind the House that this plan provides $4.1 billion over five years, which is the largest investment in official languages in Canada's history, even taking inflation into account. No other government has invested as much in supporting official languages in this country. It is a big deal.

This historic investment is having a real impact in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. For example, last year, Canada and New Brunswick signed an agreement for French language instruction that includes $133 million for instruction in both our French-language schools and our immersion schools. In other words, that money is going to schools in my region so that our children in New Brunswick can learn French.

I am also thinking of the $78-million investment announced last summer by the Minister of Health to improve access to French-language health services for francophone communities. Of this $78 million, $14 million is earmarked for the Université de Moncton for training more health professionals in medicine and nursing. In my riding, the Edmundston campus of the Université de Moncton offers a bachelor's degree in nursing. So, the investments we are making here in Ottawa in official languages are helping to train people in the health sector back home in Edmundston.

I am also thinking of the welcoming francophone communities initiative, which aims to help our francophone communities settle newcomers. There are 24 projects across the country, and I am very pleased that two of them are in my riding: the welcoming francophone community of Haut-Saint-Jean and the welcoming francophone community of Kedgwick and Saint-Quentin.

The action plan also includes the community spaces fund, because vibrant and dynamic francophone communities need places to gather. I would like to talk about a project that was funded in my constituency last year through this fund. The Centre Maillet in the Saint-Basile area of Edmundston received $2 million. Work is progressing well, and I am very much looking forward to seeing the Centre Maillet's facelift.

Through the action plan for official languages 2023-2028, we are also investing in a wide range of other areas, such as early childhood education, justice, arts and culture as well as research, to name a few. These are investments we are making here that have a real impact on the vitality of francophone communities across the country, including in Madawaska—Restigouche. I am very proud to be part of a government that is making the largest investment in official languages in Canadian history.

Budget 2025 also includes funding to support arts and culture. Money is earmarked to develop Canada's creative industries and help Canadian talent succeed in an increasingly digital and global marketplace. I will list some of the measures. The building communities through arts and heritage program will receive $21 million. This program supports local festivals, community anniversaries and capital projects initiated by communities.

My riding actually hosts many, many festivals, and dedicated volunteers contribute to the community by organizing all kinds of activities. Just two weeks ago, I announced federal funding through the program I just mentioned for the Campbellton Sno-Fest. I know that a number of similar announcements will be made in the coming year for various festivals in the riding of Madawaska—Restigouche and across the country.

We have also earmarked $46.5 million for the Canada arts presentation fund to support professional arts festivals and performance series. Once again, I know that several cultural societies in my riding benefit from this fund, which gives people in my riding opportunities to experience high-quality performances and make arts and culture part of their lives.

I am also thinking of the many investments that we are making in the Canada Music Fund, Telefilm Canada and the Canada Media Fund to support audiovisual content creators, and the list goes on.

I am very proud that our government is supporting the arts and culture sector because of its importance to Canada's economy. Artists not only make a significant contribution to our economy, they also help strengthen our Canadian identity. Their socio-economic contribution is vital.

I am proud that my government is supporting this sector. I still have a lot more to say about the budget, but I think my speaking time has come to an end, so I eagerly look forward to my colleagues' questions.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on September 17 in this very House, the Prime Minister stated, “We are going to have a declining level of debt”, yet the budget, Bill C-15, shows a growing level of debt.

Who misinformed the public? Was it the Prime Minister or the member's budget?

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that Canada has one of the best net debt-to-GDP ratios in the G7. We have fiscal capacity, and we must use it to meet today's challenges. We are facing a tariff war that we did not ask for. We need to support the Canadian economy, and we must be there for Canadian businesses that are going through tough economic times.

Businesses need us to be there to support our economy. When people need help and various social measures, we are there, and we want to use our fiscal capacity to meet the needs not only of businesses, but also of Canadians.

In fact, for several years now, my colleague and all of his official opposition colleagues have been here in Ottawa opposing us every time that we put measures in place to help Canadians.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Before continuing, I will just remind members that, even when heckling, we should try not to use unparliamentary language.

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my optimistic colleague who told us that the government is there to help economic sectors that are struggling. He reminded me of the former prime minister, who often said that they would be there to be there. Now that is what I would call really being there.

I would simply like to point something out to my colleague. He mentioned Build Canada Homes in his speech. Well, in order to build houses or dwellings with lumber, we need a forestry industry. However, that industry is currently the most heavily taxed sector with all the tariffs and countervailing and anti-dumping duties. We are talking about tariffs of 45%. Federal government assistance is still pending. The government announced a liquidity program last summer, but there are still people who have not yet seen a penny from this program, and the government continues to refuse to respond to people in the forestry industry, who actually have solutions.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, as recently as yesterday or this week, the minister announced another $500 million to help the softwood lumber industry. We understand that the industry is going through a tough time and we are there to support it. Last summer, we announced a relief plan that we are currently implementing. We announced additional measures and we will continue to be there as the situation evolves.

My colleague mentioned that I was not being specific enough. I will give him a specific, down-to-earth example. The Bloc campaigned for months to extend the runway in the Magdalen Islands, an initiative for which his colleague from Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj even formed a citizens' committee. Then, when we finally agreed, they turned around and voted against it in the House. I do not understand that.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that Bill C‑15 includes an investment to make National Acadian Day permanent. I know that is very important to him. It is also important for New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the entire Atlantic region.

Can my colleague explain why this holiday is so important?