Debates of Feb. 26th, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, having engaged with the member opposite in OGGO, I appreciate his reminding the House that I did six budgets and that I did balance the books. Ontario was the largest contributor to the rest of the federation. Even when it was a so-called have-not province, we contributed more to Canada, over $11 billion, than all the other provinces, while Quebec and others were receiving some of that funding.

Ontario was also the first to increase its credit rating, during the time I was there, recognizing the strength of our measures being taken. Over one million net new jobs were brought to the province of Ontario during that time, after we had to suffer the 2008 recession, during which the Conservatives were in power. We were still able to balance the books.

The member opposite talked about the PBO being an independent member of the House. That is essential, and I am sure it will happen in time. We will require that to be the case. All of us are held to account, and the truth matters.

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

Madam Speaker, it can be difficult to maintain order in the House. However, we in the Bloc Québécois respect the Chair, of course.

My colleague is a former finance minister. In the budget and the budget implementation bill, Bill C‑15, the government is extending carbon capture tax credits for five years to help oil and gas companies.

Does my colleague, who, as I just said, is a former finance minister, believe that oil companies are having so much trouble staying afloat and making a profit that it is justified for Quebec and Canadian taxpayers to help them spend money?

Does my colleague really think that oil companies are in such bad shape and that they are not making enough money?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the question enables us to talk about some of the measures that I took when I was minister of finance, as the member opposite reminds us. We brought in a cap-and-trade system in Ontario, aligning ourselves with Quebec. Quebec was part of the western climate initiative with California. Ontario had decarbonized its system, so we were great receivers of $1.3 billion annually through that system.

It was the Conservatives who brought in carbon tax pricing to Ontario as a gas tax. We were the ones who were exempt. The Liberal Party of Ontario was able to provide an exemption on that very issue, as was Quebec.

We talk about the $1.3 billion that we use for dollar-for-dollar reinvestment in inspiring economic growth in the province of Ontario. This has now been delayed because the Conservatives brought forward a carbon gas tax that was unnecessary. As it stands, all of us should be paying a little extra to provide greener opportunities for all of Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I would be interested in hearing the member's understanding or appreciation of the importance of trade to Canada and why, whether it is the Prime Minister, the cabinet or so many of our colleagues, they are pursuing ways in which we can increase exports. It is a very important aspect of the economy. Canada makes up about 0.5% of the world population, yet we participate in 2.5% of world trade.

I am wondering if the member could provide his perspective on the important issue of trade.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an essential part of the budget. Expanding our trade routes and expanding trade across the world is part of what gives Canada an opportunity to provide a measure, a step, for some countries to deal in the western hemisphere. Canada has been succeeding. Over $1 trillion is now being projected in supports with Canada's engagement. We are punching above our weight. In fact, Canada remains one of the top destinations for foreign direct investments, and the reason is that investors believe in Canada.

[Leslyn Lewis, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member opposite why it was necessary for the government to include a provision to exempt individuals and companies from acts of Parliament, rather than using the usual legislative amendment provisions.

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is speaking about exemptions for opportunities to make Canada more effective, to expedite matters more essential to our economy. I would refer her to those particulars. Every exemption that occurs has to be fully transparent.

There is one thing that should never be hampered but is when the Conservatives try to control the Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Ontario Securities Commission or judges. That is uncalled for, and it is one of the reasons a public budget officer is also essential to this role.

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

Madam Speaker, the government is bringing back the clean electricity tax credit in Bill C‑15, which, in many ways, is a better written bill than some of its predecessors. Officials confirmed to the Standing Committee on Finance that this credit would apply to small modular nuclear reactors that would be specifically used to clean up the oil sands in order to produce more oil.

Can my colleague explain what is clean about using nuclear electricity to produce even more of the dirtiest oil in the world?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite may or may not know that CANDU reactors and the corporation are within my riding. I have met with representatives of Candu Energy on a number of occasions. We talked about small modular reactors providing supports and electricity to those remote communities in the far north that rely primarily on diesel, which is extremely dirty, to provide greater sources of, and more secure, electricity in those areas. As we move into major projects around Canada, we are going to need some greater degree of energy.

I can say that world markets are looking to Canada-made reactors and that our CANDU reactors, not just the small modular reactors but our CANDUs, are sought after because of their ability, effectiveness, competitiveness and safety measures. I support our nuclear program in Canada for that very reason.

[Kristina Tesser Derksen, Liberal, Milton East—Halton Hills South, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the respect that Canada commands from countries and international organizations around the world. One recent example is from the International Monetary Fund. The IMF highlighted that Canada is a G7 country that has significant fiscal headroom to support economic growth through investment.

Can my colleague comment on how this budget leverages Canada's fiscal capacity to build and unleash our country's economic potential? Does he agree with the IMF's accolade?

[Charles Sousa, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that very much, and I think all of us appreciate it. All of us in the House should stand proud and tall for the fact that Canada is seen around the world, and by the G7 and the IMF, for its ability and capacity to grow and invest. Canada has done extraordinary things during downturns. Certainly in 2008, we weathered it better than any other part of the world because we had taken those steps. The IMF appreciates Canada. I think the rest of the world does as well, and so should we.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I ask for unanimous consent to share my time with the member for Calgary Centre.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the budget implementation act, I really have three things I want to talk about. I want to talk a bit about the process and the committee process that took us to what may be the last day that we debate this bill. I want to talk about some of the things that Conservatives agree with that are contained in the BIA, and I want to talk about those with which we disagree.

I want to begin by being clear on the parliamentary record that what happened with the debate on the BIA in many respects is a credit, if I may say so, to the parliamentary process by which parties agree to a work plan within committee and have a robust work plan that calls for officials and ministers to appear. We did not really have time to call very many experts outside of the public service itself, but when the bill was referred to committee, the committee got to work and got to work collaboratively.

The reason I bring this up is that it has been falsely and repeatedly said in this chamber that this bill was held up by the opposition. It was not. There is only one party that has filibustered and delayed business at the finance committee. It is actually the Liberal Party, which did so on Bill C-4. On three different occasions, they filibustered their own bill.

I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North. I invite him to check the record, maybe check with his parliamentary secretary.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am just being heckled left, right and centre. I do not know what is with the Liberals today, but I will maybe leave it at that on the process and talk about things that Conservatives agree with in this BIA. This BIA contains policy reversals from the government that we support, like repealing the digital services tax, something that we fought tooth and nail in the last Parliament. We foretold all of the consequences of that bill, and now here we are in the next Parliament, with the Liberals admitting through their legislation that Conservatives were right all along, and repealing the digital services tax. They are also repealing the luxury tax on corporate aircraft and some watercraft.

We said at the time that these taxes would simply harm industry, would raise insignificant amounts of revenue and, in fact, would likely result in lost economic activity. They have come around to us on that. They have come around on the underutilized housing tax, which we raised concerns about when they brought it in, and they are repealing this. These are all positive steps with which we agree. There are many things we do not agree with in the BIA. I am going to talk about a few of them as time will allow.

The BIA creates a Crown corporation to at least explore the construction of a high-speed rail network. We are not opposed to infrastructure, if we want to call this train such, but what they are actually doing here is proposing and beginning to spend significant amounts of money on a train that has dubious projections for its ridership and absolutely terrifying possibilities for total cost. We oppose this. The CEO of this new corp testified at committee. He was candid, and he certainly gave nothing to assure Canadians that this would not ultimately become an extraordinary boondoggle. He would not even acknowledge and seemed to act surprised when we talked about the existing subsidy to keep the existing rail network going, which relies on a subsidy of $2 for every dollar that it takes in fares.

I am going to run out of time with all the things that are wrong with this budget, but we move on to Veterans Affairs. The BIA contains an absolutely disgraceful provision for the Government of Canada to correct what it calls an ongoing mistake. Really, it is that the Department of Veterans Affairs, over a series of governments, has systematically denied proper levels of compensation to veterans on the basis of a 1998 law.

The government is being sued successfully, and it appears that it would be ordered to repay $870 million to veterans, many of whom are in long-term care. These are elderly veterans who have, in some cases, given blood and limbs for their country. To deal with the prospect of being ordered to pay nearly $1 billion in compensation, the government is trying to retroactively change a 1998 law to avoid it and give itself legal cover to refuse compensation to veterans. It is shameful.

We have heard a lot about the ministerial powers, including in the last interventions in the previous speech. I am going to go past that one because, fortunately, these were amended. This is what happened at committee. We agreed to a 605-clause bill that we went through clause by clause in only six hours. Amendments were proposed. Some amendments were accepted by the government, which is appreciated. Partially dialing back the draconian powers that the government has given itself would be one point, but we had ministerial appearances, and I have to take some time and unpack what happened when we had the Minister of Finance at committee.

The budget implementation act would implement a budget with a $78.3-billion deficit. The members of the governing party campaigned in an election, promising not to exceed their deficit. The last deficit that was tabled in the previous budget was $42 billion. There was a promise not to exceed that deficit. The Liberals formed a new government, a continuation of the old government. They added $20 billion in new deficit spending in a projection. They then promised that they would not exceed that deficit projection, but they tabled a budget with a $78-billion deficit.

I do not understand how all of these members, especially the ones who have been here since 2015, campaigned in election after election, promising that it was going to get better and that they were going to rein in spending. They promised, in 2015, to balance the budget by 2017. The Liberals have broken every promise, blown through every fiscal guardrail, cut loose every fiscal anchor, and now want to be taken at their word that $78 billion is the new number they will not exceed. The debt-to-GDP ratio is not even declining. It is going up. That used to be the sacred line that they would not cross, in the words of one of the previous finance ministers.

When the current finance minister came to committee and was asked repeatedly about balanced budgets, he actually said to me that it was irresponsible for members of the opposition to ask the finance minister when the government would balance the budget. He refused to answer a basic financial question for five solid minutes. He could have said to the committee that the government currently does not have a projection that goes out far enough to find a balanced budget, that what we see in the budget is as good as it gets or that the officials have nothing further to say on the future of deficits, but he did not. He actually challenged the legitimacy of the question. How arrogant does someone have to be, when they are in government, to suggest to an opposition member that they should not ask basic questions about the health and future of the finances of this country?

The Liberals have talked in their speeches today about the construction of major projects. They promised to build these at speeds unimaginable. We are a year in now. There are no approvals and not even any real talk about these projects. They will not even say the word “pipeline” out loud. Again, when confronted with questions about on which date construction might begin or on which date we can expect an approval, there was no answer.

The accountability has been disappointing, and that is why we oppose this budget implementation act.

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

Madam Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in the member's argument when he talks about the deficit. Surely to goodness he would recognize that of the G7 countries, countries like the United States, France and England, there are only two countries that have a AAA rating, Canada being one of them. We, the government and the Prime Minister, are using our financial capacity to build a stronger, healthier infrastructure here in Canada. We then hear the Conservatives waffle, saying they do not think this or they are not too sure about that. We saw that yesterday.

For example, does the Conservative Party support a high-speed train for Canada? I think the Conservative Party needs to be straightforward with Canadians and say yes or no. I will leave it at that.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is always fun watching the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader try to hold the opposition to account. That intervention says everything about these guys.

First of all, he is ignoring all of the promises he has run on in four elections. He is now taking credit for a AAA credit rating that his government inherited from the previous government, which is under threat by at least one agency that is talking about review. His government deserves no credit for that. It would be one thing if they had not promised something different. They did not promise to expand the deficit forever because of their fiscal capacity. That is not what they ran on. They ran on not increasing the deficit, and they have broken that promise.

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

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague, with whom we work very well on the Standing Committee on Finance. In the budget, the government allocates $11.5 billion to Build Canada Homes. This money will not be subject to parliamentary oversight. We have no idea how the programs will work and, more importantly, we have no guarantees that the money will be allocated fairly among the provinces.

I would like my colleague to tell me what he thinks about Build Canada Homes. I would like to know whether he thinks that there should be a guaranteed percentage for social, community and communal housing in Quebec, among other things.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, his question takes us right into everything wrong with the government's approach to nearly any public policy problem out there. The Liberals build bureaucracies. That is what they build. They set up fiscal structures and financial structures that, at best, are oblique and, at worst, just send money into black holes. I fundamentally disagree with the approach of the government. I am extraordinarily skeptical of its ability to achieve any of the things that it says its bureaucratic structures are set up to do.

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

Madam Speaker, the bureau of pensions advocates is about to lose half of its workforce. The Liberal government is sunsetting a program that is meant to address wait times for Canada's RCMP and military veterans. This is important for veterans who are appealing benefits that have been denied. In fact, the bureau has had an 89% success rate for cases that have been heard improving benefits.

Greg Harlow, the president of the Association of Justice Counsel, the union representing the lawyers employed by the federal government, said, “Veterans are going to get hurt” by this. The NDP put forward a motion to reverse these cuts, which was defeated by the Liberal government just yesterday.

Can my colleague speak about the duty and the honour we have to support Canada's RCMP and military veterans?

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the member for Airdrie—Cochrane, commented on this in debate yesterday. For those watching who do not know, this structure they are cutting is one that was created to help veterans cope with the sheer complexity of systems that seem almost designed, in cases, to deny benefits. That is what fiscal discipline, if that is what they want to call it, looks like with the current government, trying to stick to a promise-breaking deficit by clawing back or refusing to repay $870 million to veterans and by cutting the people who protect veterans who are struggling to get the benefits they are entitled to.

[Greg McLean, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my first time speaking to this budget, so I am happy to rise in the House today.

The first thing I would like to deal with, and all the time, of course, is the balance that we are talking about here. This budget projects a balance of $78.3 billion, and that was delivered not so long ago. Since then, we have accumulated billions of dollars more in program spending that the government did not foresee when it initially brought the deficit out at $78.3 billion, and the budget was significantly late. I know my colleagues will find me to be a broken record on that, but the ability to plan and spend requires having some focus, not just a blank cheque.

There is no foresight. There is no planning. Now, we are dealing with parts of the budget and spending money as if we have money when, in fact, we do not as a country. We have central bankers writing cheques at this point in time thinking there is no problem and just pushing out the payments for what we are doing today onto future generations. Well, there is a problem. That problem is already being witnessed across the country in higher inflation, in higher food costs, in higher housing costs and in higher costs for Canadians in general, which are leaving a generation of people behind who will need to catch up to make sure they have great futures, not more expensive futures but futures where they can build families, have housing and feed their families really well.

However, we are a country awash in debt and not just at the federal level. We look at the $1.3 trillion in debt that the country has right now, and it is going to continue to get higher. My colleagues on the other side will say, “We still have a AAA credit rating.” I would ask them if that is because they have fooled the financiers who are providing the rating, like they do in the budget documents they provide where they say that Canadians' pensions and the Quebec pension plan are actually part of the dollars they use as collateral against the debt. They are not. They are Canadians' pensions and they should not be putting those at risk, or at any conception of risk, in the marketplace. That would be a fundamental mistake. Take it out of there, and they have the highest debt-to-GDP ratio in almost the entire world, save for one or two countries.

Canadians are also personally in debt. I remember when the previous prime minister talked about piling on debt by the Government of Canada so that Canadians would not have to pile on that debt themselves. Canadians are the highest personally indebted people in the G7. It is double in Canada. We have a very indebted federal government and indebted provincial governments, but very indebted consumers as well. Therefore, when things happen badly, they are going to happen very badly as this debt spiral unfolds.

I am going to switch now to some of the things that we have talked about. The government mistakenly put forward in the budget implementation act what it calls “regulatory sandboxes”. I am going to talk about these regulatory sandboxes because many of us have dealt with them before. I know some of my colleagues in the financial services industry have probably seen them in the way regulators look at bringing in new financial products, but the government wanted exemptions from everything. Effectively we call them King Henry VIII laws. This is what the finance committee of the House of Commons had to deal with. The Conservatives brought forward some part-way solutions on this in order to get this over the line in a way that did not more or less emasculate Parliament.

The exemptions that the government members were seeking were that “Subject to subsections (3) and (7), a minister may, by order, for a specified validity period of not more than three years and on any terms that the minister considers appropriate, exempt an entity from the application of (a) a provision of an Act of Parliament,” except the Criminal Code, “if the minister is responsible for the Act”.

What the Liberals are doing here is trying to say, “All those laws that are passed that are part of the law of Canada, part of the regulations, we get to go around them. We do not care what they say. We want an exemption from all those laws because we think Parliament is a bit of a hurdle we have to get over. We want executive power in ourselves and not to have to answer to this House of Parliament.”

We know there are 343 members in the House, and I have no idea why half of them on the other side want to make themselves irrelevant. If they want to make themselves irrelevant as a party, I would say to the Liberal Party, do not run, because we have a country to run here. This is Parliament. If they think Parliament is just the executive, I would submit that they are wrong. Democracy requires that we have three stools to democracy. That includes an independent judiciary; a legislature, which we are here; and an executive. We empower that executive to get things done, but members of the executive have to bring all kinds of issues to the House to get the authority to act, including to spend money.

That is what the government is doing here with the budget implementation act. The estimates will confirm what we are going to let it spend. However, it is Parliament that decides that, and the government cannot get around the laws of Canada or Parliament in that respect.

It reminds me of Bill C-5. Members will recall Bill C-5. It was the Building Canada Act that happened in the summer, and we passed it subject to Conservative Party changes at committee that effectively said we are putting a whole bunch of borders around what the government can exempt itself from here, because we are still a country governed by laws. Those laws are important, of course. People expect those laws to continue. If we are not going to be a country of laws, we have lost something very important, and investors around the world see that.

I will contradict my colleague on the other side who said earlier that there is lots of investment coming into Canada. The only investment coming into Canada currently is government spending, which is more or less putting us deeper and deeper into debt. We are billions upon billions of dollars behind as far as investments in Canada go. Our pension plans are investing elsewhere. Everybody is investing elsewhere, because they do not see the path forward in Canada at this point in time. This is something we need to change, and if the government wants to change it, my colleagues and I will be behind them all the way making sure we make changes to things, like the Impact Assessment Act and like the tanker moratorium on the west coast, that would actually encourage us to have an economy that works in this country again. The government must get on to the real issues that should be addressed in the budget.

I am going to address a few other things here. One of the issues that we talk about is the memorandum of understanding that happened between the government and the Government of Alberta, the province where I live. The interesting thing is in the budget itself. I am going to read directly from the budget, which was passed on November 17 in the House. The budget says, of carbon capture, utilization and storage, “Eligible uses include dedicated geological storage and storage in concrete, but not enhanced oil recovery”.

Ten days later, the government had a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Alberta that said it was going to extend federal investment tax credits and other policy supports to encourage enhanced oil recovery. I am all for that. As a matter of fact, I put a bill forward in the House of Commons five years ago that said that is exactly what we should do because we are losing technology and businesses to the United States. We needed to do this a long time ago, but why on earth would the government pass a budget saying it was not going to do that and then sign a document with one of the provincial governments in Canada, the Government of Alberta, saying it is going to do exactly that?

It is no wonder the Liberal Party's own members do not trust the executive on the other side, and I would ask those backbenchers on the other side who do not support this, and half of them on the other side do not support this, why they are going to continue to push forward to give this executive even more power so it does not have to bring these kinds of issues to the House of Commons. It is our job to legislate here, and I will stand with my colleagues and make sure the government does not walk over our rights in the House.

There is one other thing I want to talk about, because it is important: the high-speed rail. We are country awash in debt. I think I pointed that out several times in the House. One of the reasons I ran here was to get our fiscal house back in order, and for us to actually plan on spending perhaps $90 billion on a new train that would serve a small geographic portion of this country at this point in time is a stretch. It is a gross stretch, but I will also point out that the start of the spending on this happened while the government was not even here. It had prorogued the House, and the government issued warrants, which is what they are called, to pay for unauthorized work with one of their favourite companies, AtkinsRéalis, which used to be SNC Lavalin, which was awash in corruption. Members will recall that very well, I am certain.

Something this country has to be ahead of is the fact that there is a lot of money going into hands behind Canadians' backs that has nothing to do with the House of Commons. This is something we have to get ahead of. We are a democracy. Let us uphold our democratic country here. Let us build a stronger Canada. Let us make sure we expose this budget and understand it so that Canadians can have the transparency they require.

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

Madam Speaker, the member is concerned about some exemptions in regard to ministers and he is not recognizing what the budget would do for technology, building and promoting economic growth. It is not to take away from the powers of the House of Commons. We could be using our standing committees in many different ways than we currently use them, ensuring more accountability and transparency. My concern is more so with the member's statements when he talked about these major projects.

I have two very simple questions. Does the member, or does the Conservative Party, actually support the entire MOU between Canada and the Province of Alberta? Second, when he makes reference to that small stretch of railway, that small stretch he is referring to is very important to the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec. Does the Conservative Party actually support that?