Debates of April 28th, 2026

Spring Economic Update 2026

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the hon. member for his point of order. If any members wish to engage in discussions, they should do so outside the chamber, where we will not be able to hear them.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker.

Basically, the finance minister keeps saying that the world has changed. In his view, the world is always changing, so the situation is serious. Here is what has changed recently.

A little over two weeks ago, the U.S. president signed a new executive order changing the way tariffs are calculated on goods exported by Quebec and Canada. Previously, about 85% of our exports were protected under CUSMA. Today, a large number of goods are subject to 25% tariffs, even though they are covered by that agreement.

As a result, nearly 50% of exports from Quebec and Ontario are now subject to tariffs, according to a recent study by the University of Calgary. Business closures have already begun. We saw a critical situation from day one at BRP. There is the case of Meubles South Shore, and there are others. It is starting to look like a house of cards. We asked the government whether measures would be taken. Our job, as an opposition party, is to ask questions.

Two weeks ago in question period, we asked the Prime Minister what he planned to do about this new way of calculating tariffs, which means that we are no longer protected under CUSMA. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister had absolutely no idea what we were talking about in question period. He was honest and upfront about it. He told us that he would get back to us with an answer. We gave him a week.

Last week, in question period, we asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do since businesses had started to close. My Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois colleagues whose ridings are home to an industrial base are getting messages from businesses that have been struggling over the past two or three weeks and that are concerned. Many of them are SMEs that have exhausted their line of credit. The Prime Minister's response was to wait for the economic update because it would provide solutions. I have not slept for a week. I have never experienced such suspense in my life. I thought that he was going to sort this problem out.

I read the economic update, and then I read it again. I told myself that the Prime Minister could not have forgotten our businesses, but he has forgotten them. Even though they are covered by CUSMA, they are currently facing 25% tariffs. In light of this, we are calling for a very short-term wage subsidy.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have announced measures related to workforce training. While it is true that this measure could be beneficial in other provinces, workforce training was fully devolved to the Quebec government several decades ago. The workforce training strategy is managed in Quebec City. Vocational training is managed in Quebec City. Sector-specific internships for the job market are administered there.

To quickly train workers in fields that are in high demand today, we need to send money to Quebec. Ottawa, however, is averse to sending money to Quebec, since it likes to meddle in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. I see the Minister of Health, who knows I like her. Her department really likes to do that. At the Standing Committee on Finance, we are conducting a study on spending authority, and the other side does not even know what they are talking about. It is disconcerting. So there are no measures for businesses.

The reality is that the United States is going to remain our biggest trading partner for a long time. This is especially true for the SMEs that are affected by these new tariffs. Large companies, particularly those in the aluminum sector, have the industrial capacity to redirect their exports to other markets, sometimes quite quickly, even if that is not ideal. However, SMEs, like the ones back home on Curé‑Labelle Boulevard in Mirabel and elsewhere, do not have the capacity to do that. Their entire bureaucratic and technical infrastructure is designed to export their products to the United States, and they do not have the resources to protect themselves.

These companies are not oil companies. My colleague spoke earlier about subsidies for oil companies. They are not big banks. They cannot afford to hire lobbyists to convince the government to give them tax credits. They have been forgotten.

The government is bragging about a strong economic record in this update. We are being told that exports to the United States have fallen by 10%, which is significant, given that this partner accounts for 80% of our exports. Canada is a small, very open economy. We are being told, quite rightly, that exports to countries other than the United States have increased by nearly 30% or 40%.

That is good news, especially considering that the Prime Minister has not signed a new trade agreement with a single one of those countries. The government is looking for new export opportunities. The Prime Minister has travelled, he has burned fuel, he has played king all over the world. One might therefore think he has signed agreements. However, we have not increased our export opportunities in a single country because the Prime Minister has not signed any trade agreements. What has increased are oil and gas exports to Europe and Asia.

Does anyone know what good came from this strong economic record? Aluminum exports to Europe increased. Our aluminum producers sent their aluminum to Europe because the Prime Minister was unable to solve the problem with the United States. That is what he is covering up.

The government says that the deficit is lower than expected. That is the other good news from the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. It is true. The deficit was $11.5 billion less than anticipated for last year. Let me remind the House that the big banks have lowered their economic growth forecasts for next year and for the year after that. That is last year's deficit. It is true that there was more growth. We acknowledge that. There was also more inflation. Across-the-board price increases generate revenue for the government. However, tax credits for batteries and tax credits for investments in clean energy account for two-thirds of the amount mentioned by the Minister of Finance. These tax credits went unclaimed because of insufficient investments, yet the Minister of Finance portrays himself as Mr. Investment.

The natural disaster fund accounts for the rest. Maybe the Minister of Finance did not do enough rain dancing, but it seems that there were not enough floods and forest fires this year to use up the $7.5 billion that was allocated.

This means we need to focus on the real issues. There is not really anything new in this document. I can show the document, since it has been tabled, so I will take the opportunity to do so. There is not much that is new, just some promising measures that have already been announced. The government deserves some credit when it develops strategies and takes the initiative, so we commend it for doing so.

There is the national defence strategy, the national auto strategy and the national infrastructure strategy. There is the national critical minerals strategy, to which we got phosphate added as part of Bill C-15. The government had overlooked this, but it had the good sense to accept our budget amendment. There is also a national strategy for nature. What is missing? There is still no national aerospace strategy.

The industry as a whole has been calling for such a strategy for two or three decades. People who truly know what is happening, those who manufacture airplanes, helicopters and parts, those who are in my riding within walking distance of my office, on the south shore and in Dorval, are calling for a national strategy. Why? The answer is so that they can develop the products that the Department of Defence and the government need, because it is a long-cycle industry. We need a strategy so that, when the time comes to order products, we can do so.

Giving press conferences like the Prime Minister and other Liberal members are doing is not enough. Right now, they are giving press conferences. Unions come to us after meeting with Liberal members. They bring up the issue with the Liberals, who then tell them that it would be unfair to the aerospace industry in Winnipeg and Manitoba if there were a Quebec-based strategy. That is what Liberal members have told our unions in Quebec. That would be useful.

I listened carefully to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. It is not always easy, but I listened to him. He said that he wants the Bloc Québécois to side with the government for once, that it would be good if the Bloc Québécois were on the government's side. He said that Bloc MPs are very partisan, that they are very difficult and very narrow-minded. It takes two to play that game. It takes two to come up with proposals that will shape our industry. Why should we be cozying up to the Liberals when they turn a deaf ear to our proposals?

I will explain why there is no aerospace strategy. We know what is happening in Ontario's auto sector. A lot of the manufacturing workforce is experiencing major structural problems. We also know the government would prefer to move a segment of the industry, possibly to Ontario. I do not know if that is true, but I do know that people are worried about it and that there is no strategy.

That is what is lacking in the economic update. Ottawa bureaucracy is out of touch with on-the-ground realities. There are plenty of examples like that. The Minister of Finance says we need to get on board. Every time there is a budget or an economic update, we make demands. Those demands are costed. They are self-funded, five-year proposals. We make those demands even though we know we will never govern. I can assure everyone that I always renew my driver's licence. I know I will never have a car service. I will keep driving my own car. That is fine. I sit down. The entire Bloc Québécois caucus sits down, and sometimes we come up with what everyone acknowledges are the best campaign platform budgets. That is what happened last time.

The first thing we are asking for is that subsidies to oil and gas companies be eliminated. That is step one. That amounts to $10 billion a year. Imagine how many school food programs could be funded with that money instead of propping up oil companies, which have no problem surviving these days. We never received a response to our request, which is entirely reasonable, rational and in the public interest. Another thing we are asking for is that the digital services tax be reinstated. That is worth $7.5 billion over five years. I see some folks over there nodding or frowning. The Liberals said they did it for the good of Canada. I will quote the government, which said recently that it would not pay an entry fee to negotiate with the Trump administration. The Liberals said that. They said they are proud and they are building Canada strong.

We know that they are building Canada strong. We are a little tired of hearing it. In fact, we do not know when this Canada strong is going to get here. They keep telling us that they are not up for paying any entry fees and will not make any concessions ahead of the negotiations. However, the first thing that the Prime Minister did when he came to power was to make concessions and bow down before the Trump administration. The government wants to build Canada strong. It wants to take a stand and show that it does not pay entry fees to negotiate. In that case, it needs to reverse course on its bad decision and reinstate the digital services tax. If Liberal members want to be proud Canadians, they should behave like it. It seems they do not, however. Meanwhile, our media is losing its fight for survival.

Let us talk about the media. There is a crisis in the media sector. It is not me saying this, it is the Minister of Finance, on page 107 of his economic update. It is a good page. I really liked it. The minister says: “Broadcast journalism in particular is a key part of our community fabric.” Let me stress the word “key”. I like the Minister of Finance. He is a revolutionary. He told us about “the government's intention to seek the views of Canadians and stakeholders on extending the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit”. Now that is a revolution. If the Minister of Finance had been around during the French Revolution, he would have set up a booth across from the Bastille and conducted a survey on the price of brioche, and France would now be under King Louis XLIX. That is what it means to do nothing for Quebec. If members want concrete examples, that is exactly what we have.

We are calling for some kind of emergency wage subsidy for businesses. We have been meeting with business leaders who are telling us they need to keep their employees on the payroll. Some companies are productive and can export if there is a free trade deal. The Prime Minister keeps saying that he will sign an agreement eventually. For these people, the solution is not to send them back to school. The solution is to lower production costs for these businesses through wage subsidies and to cushion the productivity hit caused by the tariffs until the situation improves, so that our regions do not shut down. The Liberals are refusing. I wondered why, because it is a good proposal. We are reaching out to the Minister of Finance.

I thought that the government might be waiting for Cúram to be ready, so it could distribute the wage subsidies through Cúram. Apparently, it has money for Cúram, but not for wage subsidies.

Let us talk about employment insurance, which is designed to help people get through a crisis. We are currently in a crisis. The minister tells us that the world has changed and that we are in a crisis. The unemployment rate has held up a little better than expected. We were expecting worse. We need an EI system that covers more than half of all workers. A little over half of Canadian workers are covered by EI. No one here in the House would be able to renew their mortgage if they told their lender that they have fire insurance that has a 50:50 chance of covering them. That does not happen, yet we are willing to subject workers to that.

We asked for temporary measures, and they were put in place. Those temporary measures were so necessary that they were renewed. There are pilot projects in the regions that have been going on for so many years now that they have become almost permanent. If anyone wants proof of why EI reform is needed, there it is.

I want to talk about the $814 million that was stolen from Quebec. I would think this is of interest to the minister. I have read the Prime Minister’s book; it occupies a place of pride on my bookshelf. It is called Values. Before entering politics, the Prime Minister used to travel around, talking about his values. He spoke about the fact that values are more important than the market. He spoke about the fact that having a market economy and capitalism without values leaves us, as a society, without a compass. Then, he entered politics and bought votes. What happened to values?

The Prime Minister decided to refund a carbon tax. We know how it worked. To ensure it was socially acceptable, it was refunded before people had even paid it. He decided to send refunds to seven provinces for money that had never been paid, all in order to buy votes.

Quebeckers paid for that. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, and as officials from the Department of Finance told us in committee, Quebec is owed $814 million. Where is that $814 million? It is everywhere except in Quebec at the moment. It seems to me that would be a good step to take.

Let us talk about health transfers. There is no increase in health transfers. The minister is happy because he was prepared to run an $80-billion deficit. However, we are calling for increases in health transfers. We see the need in our hospitals. We know that system costs are rising by 6% or 7% per year as the population ages. We know that no government ever introduced or implemented as many programs based on the federal spending power as the Trudeau government. That was the Trudeau government's choice. Meanwhile, people are languishing in hospital hallways and unable to get surgery. Is federal funding the only problem? It may not be the only problem, but it is definitely a substantial factor, and it is part of the solution. We also know there will be cuts starting in the next fiscal year. There is no mention of that.

There is also the issue of the guaranteed income supplement. The Liberals talk about affordability, but there is nothing in there to address affordability. The Liberals increased the grocery cheque, which is great. We welcomed that. They based it on the GST rebate, which takes into account the family structure, the family benefits that people receive, and so on.

However, as far as the government is concerned, there are still good seniors and bad seniors. The legal retirement age in Canada is 65. If that has changed, no one has told me. As far as the government is concerned, there are good retirees and bad retirees. There are people aged 75 and older whose pension increased by 10%, and there are people aged 65 to 74, who are told to go away and wait another 10 years before becoming eligible for their old age security benefits. This is discrimination between two classes of seniors. The Liberals say they want to help people with the cost of living. Seniors aged 65 to 74 are the missing group, but there is nothing about them. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue tells us that we are just too partisan and that we should support the government, which wants to take care of seniors.

There is also the increase in the Canada public transit fund. There are problems with public transit, and infrastructure investment is needed. This will promote green and sustainable growth. Half the funds went to Ontario. First, the Liberals cut the fund, reducing it from $30 billion to $25 billion over 10 years. Then they gave half the funds to Ontario. Furthermore, since this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, there is yet another standoff and everything is taking forever. Rather than being paid out for public transit projects, the money that Quebec is owed is being held up here. Perhaps the Liberals will put it into their sovereign wealth fund. I do not know what they are going to do with that money, but it is taking forever.

Let us talk about loan guarantees for the forestry sector. We have a forestry sector that pays countervailing duties in advance. Often, years later, forestry companies will win in court. They will get reimbursed for those countervailing duties, but in the meantime, they are unable to get credit because they cannot use the money they paid the Americans, those same Americans that the Prime Minister calls our friends in his public communications. Forestry companies cannot go and get that money. We need help for the forestry industry. Where is the help for the forestry industry? The minister seems to think that the world has changed, but nothing has changed for the forestry sector. That is what is happening.

Quebec also wants to be reimbursed for the money that it spent on asylum seekers. I am talking about the $733 million that the Quebec National Assembly is unanimously calling for. Is that partisan or do the 125 people who sit in the blue room in Quebec mean nothing? It is the red room these days, but it will be blue again eventually.

The Liberals are telling us that productivity and innovation are important, but they are closing agricultural research centres in Quebec, in the Minister of Government Transformation's own riding. I do not know what he wants to transform in the agricultural industry, but things are not going well. What is more, the salaries of these researchers amount to about $28 million over five years. For an organization the size of the federal government, that is peanuts. There is nothing in this budget to address that.

I do not know who is being partisan about any of that. I do not know what we are supposed to expect from an economic update like the one today. We need to help people, we need to be working on the ground, we need to be listening and we need to propose measures. The government's answer to all that is a sovereign wealth fund. Yesterday, the Liberals announced that they are going to create a sovereign wealth fund. They went to HEC Montréal for the announcement and put on a show. The audience was clapping like penguins. We asked questions. They would not give us any details, because they said we would get the details today when the economic update was tabled. We opened the economic update document and went to the section on the sovereign wealth fund. We could not contain our excitement. However, what we read was that we are going to get more news in a few months' time. There were no details, apart from one new detail about the sovereign wealth fund: The projects that it will fund are the ones that have been approved by the Major Projects Office, which the Prime Minister already basically controls. They are saying that the fund will be independent, but only just independent enough to say yes to the Prime Minister.

Eariler, we asked officials if there would be an independent investment committee. They answered that they did not know, that the board would no doubt be independent, but that the rest remained to be seen. They have no idea how much it will cost to finance this fund. They do not know what type of bond they will fund it with. They do not know what the governance rules will be. They do not even know how much private investment will be mobilized. They are putting in $25 billion, and we want to know how much private investment that will pull in. They do not know, because they only thought of it yesterday. We are supposed to not be partisan and to just clap for this, but these are valid questions. By all accounts, this fund will not be independent from the Prime Minister's Office, because he is the one selecting the major projects. They wind up on his desk, and he is the one who signs off on them. We are being told that the capital of the people who put money into the sovereign wealth fund will be guaranteed and that they will not be taking on any risk, but the projects we are talking about are so risky that nobody is willing to invest in them unless the government gets involved. Who will end up paying for these projects?

Sovereign wealth funds exist all over the world, and there are all kinds of them. Norway has one. It invests in foreign currencies, something Canada should have done long ago to avoid Dutch disease. The Netherlands' oil exports are killing its manufacturing sector. In Canada, we have never really had one, apart from a similar example in Alberta. Some sovereign wealth funds are used to influence geopolitics, like in China, where the Chinese are buying up infrastructure. Some sovereign wealth funds are used to trade on the foreign exchange market. Quebec's generations fund was a type of sovereign wealth fund. In every case, there was always a clear reason for establishing the fund.

The Minister of Finance and National Revenue has set up a fund to make an announcement. At some point, we will need to know why he is establishing this sovereign wealth fund. I am curious, and we have questions. We are an opposition party, and our job is to ask questions. The minister's job is to answer them. Eventually, he will have to answer this.

If anybody is wondering whether we are happy with this economic update, the answer is no, because it does not update anything. We knew it would not be a big document because we had had discussions with the department. We were not expecting a budget, but we were expecting something, at least. If the minister just wanted to upset everyone by announcing the deficit number, we could have waited for the official numbers in October. We will get them in our inbox.

We cannot be faced with such huge changes in tariffs and in the geopolitical landscape of global trade and then be told that the only solution is to encroach on Quebec's jurisdictions. The Liberals have a majority, as everyone knows. We want to contribute, and we always have. We want to make proposals. However, when someone make a suggestion, someone else has to listen. Someone needs to take action. Someone on the other side of the House needs to be sensitive enough to recognize that every member on this side of the House was elected by folks who deserve to be represented and whose views deserve to be heard. I think the government needs to work on its ability to listen, and I think that may well be the most pressing challenge facing this new majority government.

[Nathalie Provost, Liberal, Secretary of State (Nature)]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honoured to rise to ask my colleague a question.

It is a lesson in politics and a lesson in speed reading. At the same time, I am a bit sad, because some items that were in the budget and are now in the update that aim to support Canada were among the issues raised. For example, there was the measure to provide $5 billion in support to forestry workers. There were also items in the build communities strong fund that are very important to Quebeckers. Earlier on I spoke about it with the Leader of the Opposition. My constituents and the mayors in the riding I represent are extremely satisfied with these items.

I feel a bit sad, and I would like my colleague to tell me about the positive signs he sees in the budget for Quebeckers, because there are some. Examples include the build communities strong fund and research and development for businesses.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I know that she has worked with us in the past, in a former life. We never spoke much, but I appreciate her, and I would invite her, if she fancies some 100% pure maple syrup, to come to Mirabel. I would be delighted to give her some. Ours is 100% pure.

Following that little joke, which comes from the heart, I can tell her that it is true that there are measures in place for workforce training for forestry workers. Of course, we are criticizing how it is being done, because we genuinely believe that the expertise lies in Quebec City and that there are ways to make things move faster for the companies. There is an imbalance in federalism when it comes to workforce training, and I believe that this money should go to Quebec City, which is capable of managing it.

Now, in the forestry sector, there is always the issue of funding and access to liquidity. By implementing what the Bloc Québécois is proposing, the average tariffs on Quebec lumber would drop from about 48% to 27%, which would give the forestry sector some breathing room. It is all well and good to meet them halfway, but if a runner stops at the 21-kilometre mark, they are not going to finish the marathon.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has done an admirable job of breaking the update down into its various components.

Like the members of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives believe in a smaller but more effective federal government that respects provincial powers by focusing on its core responsibilities. This update provides for the creation of a new federal fund and expands Ottawa's role in directing economic investment. Does the Bloc Québécois support this increased centralization, or does it believe that these decisions should remain decentralized in order to reflect local priorities?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that, a few months ago, my colleague did not speak a word of French. It is extraordinary that she is able to ask questions in French, and I want to commend her for that.

My colleague was probably referring to the sovereign wealth fund. We have no information about this sovereign wealth fund. It is hard to criticize what we do not know. However, one thing is certain. This fund will be yet another new structure where a Liberal insider will be able to earn a salary of $600,000 or $700,000 to manage it.

I wonder whether there might have been a way, if there were specific projects, to go through the Canada Infrastructure Bank, for example. It is not itself a huge success, even though its mandate has changed, because it only gives out loans to obtain shares. The mandate of the Canada Infrastructure Bank has been changed more than once. I wonder whether this was just a gimmick that they came up with as a way for the Minister of Finance to tap-dance at press conferences.

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

Mr. Speaker, I first want to commend my colleague and friend from Mirabel on his excellent speech.

With regard to the $25-billion fund to build Canada strong, when we look at the revenues and expenditures set out in this update, we do not see that $25 billion figure. One has to go to page 129, under non-budgetary transactions, where there is a line that refers to enterprise Crown corporations. The amount is not broken down. We were told that the fund could be found there.

This is not very transparent. Had this fund been included in the budgetary operations, then we would not be talking about a reduced deficit but an increased deficit. Once the money is in the Crown corporation, as is the case with Build Canada Homes or any other Crown corporation that is set up, there is no longer any accountability to the House. We, as MPs, can no longer ask the government questions about it. It is managed independently, but as my colleague said, perhaps not so as independently as all that. What does my colleague think about that?

I would obviously ask the other members to keep their voices down so that I can hear my colleague's answer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am on page 129.

Essentially, what the government is going to do is borrow $25 billion. It is going to funnel that money into a corporation somewhere where there will be a lack of transparency, a corporation that will not be subject to parliamentary oversight.

We, the taxpayers, will be paying interest on that every year. We asked the government how this would be financed, and what kind of bonds would be used. We asked if the interest costs would be high and whether these were short-term or long-term bonds. The Liberals have no idea. They told us they lumped this in with all sorts of other matters and that they cannot really tell us.

If they want to sell a good idea, if they want to convince us that it is a good one, then maybe they should include the numbers somewhere. My impression is simply that the minister wanted to make an announcement and he is a little embarrassed by the structure of his proposal.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mirabel for his speech.

I would like to address his comment regarding rain dances. I simply want to bring it to his attention.

I would like to get the member's thoughts on the fact that the Liberal government has put forward a spring economic update that will not allow us to meet our climate targets, while putting billions in a sovereign wealth fund that lines the pockets of big oil corporations. Who is paying for it? It is the taxpayers and indigenous peoples, while the Liberals backslide on indigenous rights, as confirmed by Amnesty International. They could actually subsidize their corporate dream through a windfall tax paid for by their corporate friends, but alas, that is not their plan. It sounds to me like they are all in it for their corporate buddies.

I was wondering if my hon. colleague could give his thoughts on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not intend to offend my colleague. Incidentally, my riding includes the beautiful community of Kanesatake, and I want to say hello to everyone there. I certainly did not intend to offend anyone with my terrible sense of humour, which is sometimes a bit of a trademark for me.

On the environmental issue, there may be pipeline projects, but in this economic update, the government announced that it plans to move forward with 11 new liquefied natural gas, or LNG, projects. From what I understand, when the Green Party member supported the budget last fall, she was given assurances that there would be no enhanced oil recovery, that there would be no subsidies for processes that involve injecting CO₂ underground. It is buried to produce even more oil. Now the government is bringing that back and expanding the tax credits. Clearly, what was promised last fall is a done deal. In fact, once the government secured a majority, it did the exact opposite.

What is the government going to do with the money in that fund? That worries me. Will the government be transparent? It might not be transparent enough. That worries me. The Liberals already went ahead and sent some so-called green funds to PSP Investments. We never heard any more about what was being done with that money, and that worries me a great deal.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member's speech. He talked about health transfers briefly. He also had quite a bit to say about debt service and the debt repayment, like how this $25 billion going into the sovereign wealth fund would be borrowed and charged to the taxpayer immediately, even if it is put onto a separate balance sheet.

In the years ahead, we see that the increasing costs of debt service will far exceed health transfers. Can he comment on debt service costs?

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

Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the Minister of Finance was boasting about having a smaller-than-expected deficit. We see in the forecasts that the deficits for the next four years remain the same. While he is boasting about having a good year, he is not telling us that he feels guilty about forecasting four bad years.

It is clear that the government needs to tighten its belt, and we expect the minister to be more rigorous in his management.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bill, to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-205, an act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.

Spring Economic Update 2026

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to the 2026 spring economic update on behalf of Canada's New Democrats and our new leader, Avi Lewis.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge that this update includes some positive measures that New Democrats agree with and some, indeed, that we have long advocated for, including supporting apprenticeships in the skilled trades, delivering the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, standing up the financial crimes agency to better go after white-collar criminals and funding youth athletic programs.

New Democrats will always work constructively with other parties and support measures that bring real benefits to working people in this country. However, taken as a whole, this update represents a missed opportunity to meet the moment, just as the budget in the fall did. In fact, there is almost nothing new in this update that has not already been announced.

In classic neo-liberal fashion, it naively assumes the private sector can be relied upon to solve all the challenges we face. It doubles down on trickle-down economics by using taxpayer dollars to fund corporate welfare, an approach that has consistently failed to deliver benefits to working people wherever and whenever it has been applied. It falls far short of responding to the reality that Canadians are living through, the everyday emergency of just trying to get by in a rigged economy.

I want to underscore this: Across this country, people are being stretched to the breaking point. Young Canadians are being locked out of opportunity, unable to find stable work in the communities where they live. Half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque, one missed payment away from crisis. The cost of essentials, from groceries to rent, continues to soar and is pushing families deeper into anxiety and uncertainty.

At the same time, our public services are under persistent and growing strain, and our economy remains fundamentally tilted in favour of those at the very top. Beyond our borders, the world grows more unstable by the day. Donald Trump's trade war is a direct attack on Canadian workers and our industries. His illegal war on Iran has destabilized the global economy. Critically, the Prime Minister and the Liberal government chose to support that war despite its foreseeable economic consequences for Canadians.

New Democrats recognize these are not small challenges. They demand bold, decisive action. They demand a government willing to stand up for people instead of deferring to the powerful, yet what we have before us is an economic update that tinkers at the margins when what Canadians need is transformative change.

Modest relief is not enough when people are facing an affordability emergency, and make no mistake, this is an emergency. At kitchen tables across this country, Canadians are doing everything right. They are working hard. Some are juggling multiple jobs. Others are caring for children or aging parents. Many are sacrificing just to keep up. Despite all that effort, they continue to fall behind. Why is this? It is not because Canadians are not working hard enough. It is because the system is not working for them.

To understand why so many Canadians feel like they are falling behind, we have to confront a deeper truth. This is not just an affordability crisis; it is also an inequality crisis. In Canada today, the richest one per cent hold as much wealth as the bottom 80% combined. That is the worst degree of inequality in generations in this country. Even more striking is that Canada's richest 86 families hold as much wealth as the poorest 6.2 million Canadians. While wealth at the top explodes, everyone else is being squeezed. That is why working harder is no longer enough. That is why people feel that the system is rigged; in many ways, it is.

Corporate profits are soaring. Billionaire wealth is growing by the tens of billions. There are almost double the number of billionaires in Canada today than there were 20 years ago, but wages are not keeping up, costs are rising and public services are being cut. This level of extreme inequality undermines social cohesion, weakens democracy and makes it harder to solve every other challenge we face, from housing to health care and climate change, as public priorities are displaced by private interests.

However, in this economic update by the Liberal government, there is really no serious plan to address these issues. There is no effort to rebalance the system, and no willingness to ask those who have benefited the most to contribute more. It is no surprise that, for the economic projections the government relied on for this economic update, it consulted a group of some 12 economists, and every single one of them works for a bank or the corporate sector. Not a single labour economist was consulted on the path ahead for the government.

Working Canadians are not asking for special treatment. They are asking for an economy where hard work is rewarded, where opportunity is real and where prosperity is shared. Until we confront the growing concentration of wealth and power in this country, we will not solve the affordability crisis, because at its core, that crisis is not just about high prices. It is about who our economy is built for and who it is leaving behind.

Let us talk about one of the clearest examples of that imbalance, one that came up just last week, which is predatory pricing. Canadians know that prices are too high. We just have to walk down a grocery aisle to know that. They see it every time they go to the grocery store, pay rent or fill up their gas tank. What they may not know is that companies are increasingly using invasive data practices, such as tracking personal information to charge different prices to different people, often exploiting the most vulnerable, those who do not have the mobility to actually chase lower prices. This is called “surveillance pricing”. It means two Canadians can pay different prices for the exact same product simply because an algorithm decides that one of them can be charged more, and they can get away with it. That is not fair or transparent, and it should not be legal.

The New Democratic Party called on the government last week to ban surveillance pricing and to protect consumers from this kind of digital price gouging. However, in this economic update, there is nothing. There is no action, no protection. There is not even any acknowledgement of the problem. There is just full-throated support and cheerleading for more AI. Canadians deserve a marketplace that is fair, that is competitive and that is not one that exploits them in increasingly sophisticated ways.

Let us turn to energy. Canadians are being crushed by the cost of living, and now gas prices are skyrocketing, but not everyone is suffering. Oil and gas companies are set to rake in an extra $90 billion in profits this year alone from Donald Trump's illegal war on Iran, which is an illegal war that the government supported. What was the government's response? It was a tax cut, which oil companies can simply pocket, and no doubt will pocket to some degree, by raising prices.

That is not relief. That is a gift to the oil and gas sector. It is also a band-aid, because that reduction in the excise tax will last only until Labour Day. We will come back to this point in September and find out if gas prices are lower in September, because every reputable economist that I have looked at tells us that we are looking at persistent high oil prices for the foreseeable future beyond Labour Day. Instead of more corporate welfare, we should put a windfall tax on oil and gas giants and invest that money in projects that benefit working Canadians.

Through this update, the Liberal government announced plans to launch a sovereign wealth fund and the Canada Strong fund, and it cited Norway as an example. New Democrats have been calling for this approach for many years. Norway has a public oil company and invests the revenues in its sovereign wealth fund, which is now worth over $2 trillion. Norway put that money to work for the public benefit, including building a renewable economy and investing in high-quality public services.

However, what this update is proposing is the mirror image of what Norway has done. Norway built a public oil company, something the Conservatives dismantled under Brian Mulroney, and it took a fair share of the oil profits for the public. However, instead of using private profits for the public benefit like Norway did, the Liberals are proposing to use public money for the private profit of wealthy investors. The public takes on the risks, but the private sector reaps the rewards.

New Democrats favour the concept of a sovereign wealth fund. We believe we have an opportunity to fund it properly for public benefit like the Norwegians did. It should start with an excess profits tax on the oil and gas sector. Now is a great time to do it, as Canadian oil companies stand to reap some $100 billion in excess profits this year alone. If we cannot start now, when can we start? However, there is nothing in this update to ask the most profitable corporations to contribute their fair share towards Canada's economic transformation.

I would like to turn now to housing, because no discussion of affordability is complete without addressing the housing crisis. This is one of the clearest and most painful expressions of inequality that exist across our economy. Secure, decent, affordable housing is a foundational need for every Canadian. It anchors us in community, making participation in society and access to work, friends and family possible.

However, young people are giving up on ever owning a home. Renters are facing relentless increases in housing and security. Seniors are struggling to remain in their community. Students are being priced out of the community they grew up in, are being forced into unsafe conditions or are having to live with roommates well into their thirties. This is a national crisis, and it demands a response on the scale of a crisis.

In the last election, the Liberals made a clear promise. They said they would double Canada's rate of residential construction to reach 500,000 homes per year over the next decade, but a recent report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer found that the government has not even laid out a plan to achieve that goal. Maybe that was why the government was so quick to remove him.

According to the same report, the government's flagship initiative, Build Canada Homes, will produce only about 26,000 homes by 2030. That is nowhere near what is required. That is not a legitimate response to a housing crisis. At the very moment when Canadians need a surge in housing construction, federal housing spending is projected to fall over the coming years. That is the opposite, I would suggest, of what this moment needs.

For decades, successive governments, Liberal and Conservative alike, have stepped back from building non-market housing, the only way we are going to deliver truly affordable housing. The result is clear. Canada now lags far behind peer countries in the supply of housing that is built for people, not for profit. New Democrats know that the market alone cannot fix this crisis. I think the Liberals and Conservatives refuse to acknowledge that.

New Democrats say that we need sustained federal leadership and long-term investment to dramatically scale up non-market housing: co-ops, student housing, seniors' housing, supportive housing for people living with disabilities and housing for low-income Canadians. Housing is not just a commodity to be addressed by the market. It is a human right and a foundational need.

Housing is the foundation of stable lives, strong communities, a fair economy and a healthy country. Investing in housing is also smart economic policy. It creates good jobs, supports local industries and builds the infrastructure our communities need in order to grow. Once again, this economic update fails to rise to that challenge.

Health care is another area where the government is failing to meet the moment. Canadians are deeply proud of our public health care system. In fact, as we face threats from south of the border, from Mr. Trump, public health care is one of those strong national Canadian institutions that has helped bind us together and create Canadian pride in the face of that threat to our sovereignty. However, our health care system, as we all know, is under strain. It has been facing staff shortages, long wait times and growing privatization. Now instead of strengthening it, the Liberal government is stepping back.

During the last election, the Prime Minister and, I would bet, every single person elected on the Liberal side of the House promised Canadians that they would protect and expand pharmacare. The Prime Minister committed to signing agreements for free contraception and diabetes medications with all outstanding provinces and territories, in his words, “quickly and equitably”. Liberals insisted on calling it “national pharmacare” when New Democrats, of course, meant public pharmacare.

After being in power a year, the Liberals have not signed one agreement with a single province or territory, leaving only B.C., Manitoba, P.E.I. and the Yukon territory with deals in place. That is not national. In fact, Newfoundland and Labrador's health minister just revealed that the federal government has now closed the door on negotiating a pharmacare program with their province. We hear the same thing from the Government of Nova Scotia. Even more troubling, we have also recently learned from P.E.I.'s health minister that the Liberal government will allow existing agreements to expire in 2029, dismantling pharmacare before it is even fully realized.

This economic update does not even include pharmacare in its list of affordability measures alongside dental care and other programs like child care. This economic update claims that the government is protecting essential social programs, but that simply is not true. The Liberals committed to national pharmacare, which the NDP forced to be delivered publicly. Betraying that pledge is politically immoral. It is a democratic offence, and the Liberals ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Speaking of what is politically immoral, this update provides no increase whatsoever to the Canadian dental care plan. As we all know, costs go up every year, and the CDCP is no different. Any government truly committed to the long-term viability of dental care would ensure that both the income threshold to qualify and the fee guide to properly compensate oral health professionals went up by at least the rate of inflation. The fact that the Liberals have ignored that completely, not adding a penny to the fee guide or to the income threshold, speaks volumes to their lack of commitment to this important public health initiative spearheaded by the NDP.

We all hear Liberals stand up in this place and in public claiming to take credit for dental care, when we all know the NDP forced them to bring it in. As Joe Biden said, “don't tell me what you value, show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value.” Nothing speaks louder about this Liberal government's lack of commitment to dental care than the fact that they are allowing it to wither on the line, not properly funding it, as soon as the New Democrats are not there to make them do it.

If I might, there is also an issue of accuracy in budgeting and budget integrity raised by this update. This government is projecting a deficit difference of $11 billion from projections it made just five months ago. Despite a 2026 that is shaping up to be just as volatile, just as uncertain, just as affected by tariffs and Trump and increasingly affected by global disorder as 2025, this update claims Canada will face four smooth quarters of 2% growth. To compare that to last year, we experienced two quarters of growth and two of recession.

If I did not know any better, I would say that the government is pulling the old Paul Martin trick: overestimate, pad numbers and claim victory when they come in better. In fact, that would be amusing, if the real pain of an economy that is not serving working people was not so devastating.

This brings me to the broader question of nation building. At key moments in our history, Canada has chosen to build, to invest in public services and infrastructure that connects us, strengthens us and prepares us for the future. New Democrats say that today should be one of those moments. We face economic uncertainty, yes. We face external threats, yes. We face internal inequality and declining affordability. That is precisely when governments must step up, yet there is not nearly enough in this update for indigenous people, for real action on the climate crisis, to support our public servants, who deliver critical services for Canadians, or to invest in peace building and peacekeeping. Instead, the Liberal government has chosen to put its blind faith in the market to solve our current challenges.

New Democrats see a different path. We understand that our country faces deep structural problems that cannot be solved through the profit motive and the private sector alone. Ensuring that everyone has a roof over their head, a world-class education and high-quality health care can only be done by the government using collective power and exercising public enterprise. We need investments in non-market housing, clean energy, transportation and public services that create jobs and build resilience. We need to strengthen the east-west connections and reduce our dependence on an increasingly unreliable U.S. We need a vision for Canada that is bold, inclusive and forward-looking.

That is not what the economic update delivers. The pattern is clear. On affordability, the government falls short. On inequality, the government falls short. On housing, the government falls short. On jobs and public services, the government falls short. On health care, the government falls short. On the broader vision that Canadians need, it falls short.

Canadians deserve better than slogans and self-congratulations. We heard the Conservatives practise nursery rhyme politics. Now we are hearing endless sloganeering from the finance minister. Slogans do not put food on the table, and slogans are not a substitute for strong public programs.

Canadians deserve a government that understands the scale of the challenges they face and responds with the urgency those challenges demand. Canadians deserve fairness. They deserve security. They deserve hope.

The New Democratic Party put forward clear priorities for this economic update: ban surveillance pricing; implement a windfall profits tax on oil and gas giants; enforce the Canada Health Act against privatization; strengthen public health care, including pharmacare and dental care; and take real action on affordability. These are practical measures that would make a real difference in people's lives.

The government chose not to act in those ways. Instead, it has delivered an update that is out of step with the reality most Canadians are living. That is the central issue. While we debate in this chamber, Canadians are making impossible choices. They are skipping meals. They are delaying care. They are taking on debt just to survive.

Canadians are not asking for miracles. They are asking for fairness. They are asking for leadership. They are asking for a government that is on their side.

This moment calls for courage. It calls for a willingness to challenge the status quo and to build an economy that finally works for everyone. This economic update, unfortunately, does not meet this moment. However, it is not too late to choose a different path, a path that puts people first, a path that builds a fairer, stronger and more resilient Canada. That is the path New Democrats will continue to fight for. It is the path we will work on collaboratively with the government, should it choose to pursue it, because Canadians deserve nothing less.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague and I disagree on a great many things, but if I extract the essence from it, which is that the Liberal government cannot be trusted, I think he and I are probably in alignment here.

My question for my hon. colleague, though, stems from the fact that many of the problems he describes from the last several years of the Liberal government have been because the NDP offered the Liberals a blank cheque. When the NDP leader in the House gets up and talks about the Liberals' failure to deliver pharmacare, for example, how is that not a failing of the NDP, given that this was supposedly one of their concessions, to offer that support? Even last night, the NDP voted with the Liberal government to stack parliamentary committees, to give it, once again, carte blanche to run the parliamentary table.

Why has the NDP not learned its lesson?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talks about what the NDP did last Parliament. I think we stand in this place, and in our communities, with great pride. With the caucus of 2025, we brought in dental care to nine million Canadians. In the House, the NDP brought pharmacare to over 10 million Canadians and established the first public delivery of diabetes and contraceptive medications. There are people today in this country who are walking into pharmacies and walking out with their diabetes meds, using only their health care card, because of what the NDP did in the House. The NDP also brought an anti-scab law to this place, finally protecting workers who risk violence on the picket line.

I cannot point to a single accomplishment of the Conservatives. With their vaunted official opposition last Parliament, they cannot point to a single thing, not one, that they delivered for Canadians.

What I will say concerning the support of the Liberals is that it was not the NDP that voted for the government's throne speech. That was the Conservatives. It was not the NDP that voted for Bill C-2 and Bill C-5 and helped the government pass major economic programs in the House. It was the Conservatives who voted with the Liberals. There is only one coalition that I see in the House, which is the far-right Conservative Party sitting to my right and the progressive conservative party I see across the aisle.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about the fact that, right now, Canadians across this country are really struggling to pay for groceries, to pay for rent, to find housing and to pay for gas. The Liberal government brought forward a spring economic statement that completely missed an opportunity, an opportunity for the government to show that it understood what Canadians were dealing with, the challenges that Canadians were facing. There is nothing for renters. There is nothing for people who use public transit. There is nothing that would help people with the affordability crisis they are facing. In fact, the government is just redoing announcements in the most typical Liberal fashion.

One of the things my colleague spoke about was the health care system and the need for us to protect the Canada Health Act, as well as the need for us to look at those affordability things, such as dental care and pharmacare. If we want to talk about something that will make life more affordable for Canadians, it would be ensuring that their pharmaceuticals are paid for and that they are covered. It would be ensuring that dental care for themselves, their children and their families is covered. This is something that makes life more affordable.

What would it look like for people in my province of Alberta if the Liberal government had actually lived up to the promises it made to New Democrats and the promises it made to Canadians?

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me an opportunity to thank my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona, who has been such a powerful voice for equity and for defending things such as public health care, which is under great threat from the Conservatives in Alberta. We can actually see what would happen if the federal Conservatives were to ever get power in this place. We can see what they would do by looking to places like Alberta, where there is a constant attack on the public delivery of health care and a constant push for privatization, and we know where that ends. That means that people with means and wealthy people will always get the health care they want and the rest of people, those who cannot afford it, will suffer. This is what Conservative approaches to health care mean.

However, what is more disturbing to me is the way the Liberal government, which is governing as a conservative party, has adopted, with slightly nicer language and perhaps less severe vocabulary, the same policies. Let us take pharmacare as an example. The government negotiated with us and signed a bill into law called the Pharmacare Act, which obligates the government to negotiate pharmacare agreements with every single province and territory in our Confederation.

Again, I will repeat that the Liberals insisted that we call it national pharmacare, but they have stalled at regional pharmacare. They refuse to sign anymore pharmacare agreements with any provinces and territories. All they had to do was put a few billion dollars into this budget, and they could have signed agreements with every remaining province and territory. They chose not to. They have put tens and tens of billions of dollars into military spending, so if they want to find the money, they can.

Politics is about choices. The Liberals had a choice to make. They could have honoured their word, honoured the Canada Pharmacare Act, honoured their 30-year commitment to public pharmacare and put some money in to make pharmacare a reality across this country, but they chose not to. That is why New Democrats are needed in this place. We are the only party that consistently stands up to protect, defend, sustain and expand public pharmacare, which we will do in the House until every Canadian can get the health care they need from head to toe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Vancouver Kingsway, the parliamentary leader for the New Democratic Party. I agreed with every single thing he said, right up until when he said the NDP was the only party in this place to stand up for universal pharmacare. We will continue to agree with him that the current Liberal government has abandoned it by not concluding agreements with every province. We are the only country that has universal public health care but does not have complete coverage for prescription drugs.

I would like to ask the hon. member if he would like to expand on and explain how universal pharmacare would bring down health care costs across Canada.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this gives me a chance to correct the record and to agree with my hon. colleague, the leader of the Green Party. Yes, the Green Party is a staunch advocate for public pharmacare. I want to thank her and her party for that principled position.

Pharmacare is not just a moral imperative. We New Democrats believe that every Canadian should be able to get the medicine they need when they need it, regardless of the size of their bank account. This is simply an extension of the fundamental principle of our medicare system, and it is also economically smart. Study after study, seven of them in a row, has found that if we bring in universal public pharmacare in this country, we will save anywhere from $4 billion to $14 billion a year and cover every single Canadian.

It is not just me saying that. It is what the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health found. It is what the Senate committee has found. It is what the committee that was struck by the government and Dr. Eric Hoskins found. Dr. Hoskins is the former Liberal health minister of Ontario. The committee found that by making sure every Canadian has their medication, we would keep Canadians healthier and save money. It has been estimated that it would save $500 to $600 per person per year. If someone has a catastrophic illness, it would be far more than that.

Apparently only the New Democrat and Green members of the House are people who would take the wealth of this country and build our Canadian health care system, expanding it so Canadians would get coverage not only for hospital and physician care but also for mental health care, eye care, ear care, pharmacare and dental care. We are going to keep fighting for that.

However, the Liberals have done us a favour, through their fall budget and the spring economic update, by showing Canadians what they really believe in. When the Liberals do not have a minority government and other parliamentarians forcing them to do progressive things, they show us who they really are, and the government is showing us what it is. It is a right-wing, conservative government that does not believe in things like public health care.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise at this later hour, having had some hours pass since the Minister of Finance tabled the spring economic update.

It is always an honour to rise in the House as leader of the Green Party of Canada. It is a great honour for me.

I did not have high expectations or much hope for the 2026 spring economic update—it is not a budget—but still, I am disappointed. No explanation was provided concerning the measures we were expecting. The government promised to provide details on measures it had already announced. They are not in this update.

I want to explain the things that are most important to the Green Party, including the challenges facing Canada right now. It is clear that the Prime Minister and the Liberal majority government are facing major challenges related to global events beyond their control.

It is very clear, and I do not want to suggest that the situation would be easy if I were in the Prime Minister's chair. It would not be easy for any government to deal with the fact that our greatest ally and trading partner, our neighbour to the south, is no longer a reliable ally, which is a gross understatement.

We are not just dealing with our regional relationships, as neighbours here on Turtle Island, between the United States and Canada. We are dealing with much more than that. What Donald Trump represents to the world is the source of geopolitical instability.

The United States and Israel together launched a war on Iran. I agree with my colleague from the New Democrat Party, and it needs to be acknowledged every time we talk about the impacts of the war in Iran, that it is an illegal war. It did not have even the minimal justifications under international law of necessity for a war. It is a war of choice. It was reckless.

Much of the spring economic statement talks about the economic uncertainty created by what is now happening, the disruption of the war against Iran and how it spread with Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Iran's retaliation against numerous gulf states. There is no question that there are challenges for any finance department or any central bank anywhere in the world in trying to project and predict what the world holds, what the economy is going to be like even six months from now, much less on a usual budgetary horizon of budgeting out and forecasting four years' worth of spending.

Still, despite those challenges, I am surprised at this spring economic statement's overall tone. It is remarkably sanguine, as if we do know what is ahead and can confidently predict that the government has done a great job already.

For instance, there are numerous graphs and charts throughout this spring economic statement that present a picture that is not real. Even in examining the pictures that are in the budget and looking at the graphs, there are claims that we have done a great job of expanding markets outside of the United States for our fossil fuel exports. It is suggested in graphs and bar charts. To the casual observer, it might seem that we had made a major difference in how much of our fossil fuel exports do not go to the United States anymore. Those bar charts are misleading. They say there has been a big increase in non-U.S. exports. Yeah, from 3% to 10%, and when we present percentages in bar charts, we can make that look like a lot, but the reality is still the same. About 90% of our fossil fuel exports go to the United States.

It is the same thing for exports of our other products. Our economies are still very interlocked. We are mutually dependent on each other's exports and imports. We do want trade diversification; Greens do as well. Again, the tone of the spring economic update is remarkably sanguine.

There is a comment on page 27 that suggests that longer-term oil price expectations are now more firmly anchored. I am baffled by that. Certainly, global energy economists do not share that sense of assurance that we now have more firmly anchored oil price expectations. On the contrary, around the world, energy economists are saying that it is extremely volatile, that it does not seem to be settling down and that there is no way we would possibly know that. Given that, the appropriate things to do are not necessarily where the government is heading.

There is much discussion in the spring economic update of how the Middle East uncertainty, the illegal war against Iran launched by the United States and Israel, is going to affect Canada's future. In reading the spring economic update, it is as though the most we can say about it is that it has been some kind of blip and that we can almost say we are going to be past it soon. That is completely contradicted by the opinion of experts.

I am saddened by the fact that there is no mention in the spring economic update of the conclusion of one of the world's leading energy economists and experts, the executive director of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol. He has said very clearly that the oil crisis triggered by the Iran war has changed the fossil fuel industry for ever.

What the International Energy Agency is saying is that the days of fossil fuels are now very limited and it is not just by the climate crisis. We should have said the days of fossil fuels are limited some time ago, the days are drawing to a close. Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau did say that at one point, that we know that we are moving away from fossil fuels.

However, this is interesting. We are at a tipping point in terms of climate science and we are at risk. Global scientists are saying we are at a significant risk of hitting a tipping point. There is a whole system called the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, AMOC. The Gulf Stream is part of it. It is basically a vast conveyor belt of ocean currents in the Atlantic Ocean. We are at the point where global scientists are saying we are perilously close to where it becomes inevitable that the AMOC is going to stall or collapse. This is not just startling or alarming, it is terrifying.

The scientists who have done this work say they now see that the chances are not less than 5% as previously thought, but are approaching fifty-fifty. That is a global tipping point in climate science, which should be moving us off fossil fuels quite rapidly and toward tree planting and anything we can do to avoid, as the lead scientist on this report said, the collapse of the AMOC. We must avoid its collapse “at all costs” because the impact of this would be a rapid climatic shift that is planetary and would soon become inevitable and unstoppable.

That is a tipping point in global climate science, but here, we have the head of the International Energy Agency saying we have basically hit a tipping point due to geopolitical instability, and that economies around the world are not going to want fossil fuels because of the instability and because they are inevitably and inextricably tied to wars and instability.

This spring economic update is tone-deaf to even the possibility that Canada's future economic stability is not tied to boosting fossil fuels. We have new subsidies for LNG and new announcements for pipelines, and there is practically a hallelujah chorus for this, but not from the Green Party.

We are looking at what it means for Canada's economy, not just our survival, as if our survival as a human civilization is a small thing, to hard-wire itself to fossil fuels when we know what we know about the transition that is happening globally based on price alone. Price point alone is moving investment dollars away from fossil fuels and rapidly to renewable energy, to solar, wind and geothermal, but particularly solar because solar electricity is now cheaper than coal.

It is astonishing that in the spring economic statement, renewable energy is not mentioned or increased. There is no commitment to expand it. We do have a commitment here that we have been waiting for, for some time. The November 4, 2025, budget, said, at page 19, that one of the great building Canada strong kinds of projects would be “building clean power grids for a sustainable future”. We have been waiting for announcements for a green electricity grid for some time. The Prime Minister has hinted at it at various points at press conferences. He said we would see this commitment to a green electricity grid strategy very soon.

In this spring economic statement, it is mentioned, all right, that something we are looking at is building “a stronger grid” for Canada, but what we get is not a commitment to fund it, build it or put it on the major projects list. What we get is that very soon we will see a discussion paper. That is not just underwhelming; it is appallingly negligent. We need to do more than have a discussion paper about a key piece of infrastructure that has been promised over and over again without details, and now, after all of that, what we get in today's spring economic update is the promise of a discussion paper to be released soon. The ways in which this disappoints are quite numerous, and I know I have enough speaking time to get to some of them, but not all of them.

Let us look again at what was one of the big-ticket items announced yesterday. Before we got the spring economic statement, we were told that Canada is unveiling a new Canadian sovereign wealth fund. It sounds wonderful. It sounds very patriotic. It sounds like a new idea. Of course, it immediately brought to light and raised comparisons with Norway's sovereign wealth fund. We were told that there would be details in the spring economic statement of how this was going to work. The Prime Minister said yesterday that the sovereign wealth fund was also going to give individual Canadians a chance to invest, and that was going to be part of this. The sovereign wealth fund would allow individual Canadians to be part of putting together the investment dollars that we need for a sovereign wealth fund.

First of all, let us compare it to Norway. Norway's sovereign wealth fund was built on taxation of oil revenues. Ironically, it was the Norwegian experts who came to Alberta who understood the rules of Peter Lougheed, who was a visionary, for developing the oil sands: “act like an owner” and “don't live on oil rents but set them to the side”. The sovereign wealth fund has allowed individual Norwegians to have millions of dollars of assets in a sovereign wealth fund built on North Sea oil. Ironically, that Norwegian sovereign wealth fund was developed based on what Peter Lougheed was doing in Alberta, which was then cancelled by Ralph Klein. It is interesting how leaders of the same party can follow such radically different approaches. In any case, Norway's sovereign wealth fund was built on oil taxation with revenues for the benefit of all.

What is the Canada Strong fund going to be? We do not know yet. We do know that it is not based on revenues from taxation of oil wealth. It is, rather, the opposite. It is based on borrowing $25 billion, again public borrowing and debt, to call it a sovereign wealth fund. We do not have any details in today's document. The spring economic statement has no details on how this is going to work.

We do know that we have created a new entity once again. It is very common in the current government for all kinds of new offices to open, and the Canada Strong fund now would have a Canada Strong fund transition office. The Canada Strong fund transition office, once established, and of course it does not exist now, would consult widely and then tell us how the Canada Strong fund would work.

If it is not ready to be announced, the Liberals could wait until they had answers before announcing things, but that is just me. I would like to know the details about something that is basically the top-line headline for the spring economic update: that we have a new, first time ever, Canadian sovereign wealth fund.

Just as advice to the government, I will say that it might be useful to figure out how to do this, because the Green Party already did the research. We asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to figure out how we could have funding for Canadians and for our own resources, and create it based on the concept of Canada savings bonds. We called them “saving Canada bonds”, and we had the Parliamentary Budget Office cost this out for us.

If we have strategic reserves of our resources, to avoid having them shipped to the U.S. and tariffed or whatever, we could, for instance, buy up all of Canada's potash at the price that potash producers want to receive, at market prices, and we could store it. We actually had the Parliamentary Budget Office include reasonable estimates for what it would cost to store the potash until we wanted to sell it to someone. There would be a guaranteed return on investment to individual Canadians of 5%.

Therefore, I recommend to the Minister of Finance that he have a look. I have already mentioned this to the Prime Minister. On the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer's website is the research that was done, because once the PBO does research for a political party, it does not belong just to the political party for which it did the research. It is publicly available information. The government could find out how to generate $50 billion in revenue from wealth taxes or how to use financial transaction taxes at basically 20¢ for every $100 in stock market transactions, and how that would create new sources of government revenue to afford the things we need.

We need to address rapidly what is happening with youth unemployment. We need to address what is happening in the affordability crisis. Yes, we should have excess profit taxes on the grocery chains and, yes, excess profit taxes on oil and gas companies and wealth taxes on the very wealthiest people, not affecting most Canadians. These are things we could do. By asking the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer to cost them out, we have proven they can be done.

Actually, it is striking to me that the Green Party, with our rather abysmal lack of resources compared to the Government of Canada's resources, did a better job pointing out how we could protect our economy, protect our natural resources, avoid Trump's tariffs and have better economic sovereignty than the Government of Canada has done to date. Members can please check if they do not believe me. We actually brought the deficit down more as a party than did any other party, not by cutting, but by generating new revenue for the Government of Canada.

The government claims that there is revenue. It is a shocking claim in the spring economic update that there is more revenue by expanding a subsidy. This goes back to one of the main reasons that the former minister of the environment resigned over last year's budget. At page 348 of the November 2025 budget there was a commitment that investment tax credits would apply for carbon capture, utilization and storage “but not [for] enhanced oil recovery”.

In this spring economic update, we finally find out, because it was very clear that the commitment made to Danielle Smith in the November 27 MOU with Alberta very specifically said that there would be investment tax credits available for enhanced oil recovery. This is a little tricky, and I will try to get through it quickly. We had to ask a lot of questions in our off-the-record lock-up with the Department of Finance Canada officials, because I just found it too perplexing for words to hear that now the Liberals were going to admit that, as of today, there will be investment tax credits available for enhanced oil recovery.

Astonishingly, at page 64, it says that this will, “increase federal revenues by $395 million over four years”. I had to press. I asked how increasing a subsidy to the oil and gas industry would increase federal revenue. The government had to admit that It might be considered misleading because it does not actually increase government revenue. What it does is decrease some government spending as against the system of November 2025, the carbon capture, utilization and storage piece. The Government of Canada was supporting keeping carbon in the ground, which meant it was paying to help the oil and gas industry store carbon. When it does not store as much, because with enhanced oil recovery it takes it out of the ground, it increases the profits of the oil industry by allowing that oil to come out of the ground and be sold and burned. I kept pressing on how that would increase federal revenues, as the spring economic update claims at page 64. Finally, it was admitted that it was not exactly that it increases the revenue, but decreases the spending, as the federal government no longer has to provide as much money to the oil industry for the purpose of keeping carbon in the ground. It just creates more profits for the oil industry and somewhat reduces the spending of the federal government. It is not new revenue.

There is so much here that I found difficult to absorb and hard to accept, particularly the government's vision on artificial intelligence. I have to say, from yesterday's protests of young people on the lawns of Parliament, that they are concerned about the impacts of artificial intelligence and screen time on their mental health and well-being. Here we have the government's vision, “Artificial Intelligence for All”. That is just plain tone-deaf. We need legislation that regulates online harms from this development. We are not going to be able to stop AI, but the idea that we are going to have a homegrown AI industry that creates lots of jobs for Canadians is hooey. However, it is a big part, apparently, of the vision of the government for the future of Canada's economy.

I will close by saying this. There are opportunities for Canada, even in this world of geopolitical instability. There are opportunities for us to stand up for human rights, to stand up for other democracies, to only trade with other democracies that respect human rights and to be a beacon of hope and sanity in this world. However, to decide, as though we are still living in the 1950s, that our future lies in fossil fuels, and that economic growth and growing the GDP is enough to make Canada a more prosperous country with greater societal well-being, is simply wrong. It does not lead us there. History has taught us that. What makes Canada's economy strong is economic sovereignty. What gives us resilience is to not be dependent on the United States to the degree we are, but to broaden our links and link arms with democracies that respect human rights and climate action. That is not too late to achieve.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I saw in this budget that alarmed me was the change to the contributions for the Canada pension plan. I have been very concerned about the Canada pension plan because in my province of Alberta there has been a serious attack on it by the Conservative government in that province. I brought forward legislation, Bill C-207, that would protect the CPP, but the government did not choose to do that. In fact, it chose to reduce the contributions. I wonder if that is because our current Liberal government, or should I say Progressive Conservative government, sees the CPP the same way the Conservatives do, as a business tax instead of deferred wages that, in fact, workers have contributed to so they can have a dignified retirement. The CPP is something we should all be proud of in this country. We should be contributing to it so we can ensure that people in our communities can retire with dignity and have that security for their senior years.

I wonder if the member could provide her thoughts on this reduction in the contributions for the CPP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I totally agree with my hon. colleague from Edmonton Strathcona that this is also worrying. It appears that the government thinks there is enough of a surplus in the Canada pension plan that it is okay to reduce contributions. We need to know that there is not going to be a reduction in the benefits to which senior Canadians are entitled, and we need to know that it is not seen as a business tax.

Also, there is one quick thing, if I may. The Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act is one of the pieces of legislation that should be amended. There is $80 billion in the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board. It has access to $80 billion, and most of it is invested in the United States. All it looks at is the return on investment, not thinking of Canada first in regard to where we invest our Canada pension plan dollars. It is shocking.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It being 6:58 p.m., pursuant to order made on Tuesday, April 21, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:58 p.m.)