Debates of June 1st, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, a Liberal is heckling across the way, but they do say that. They think that having a grocery benefit is a good thing, but it means they are failing. It means the economy is going down the dumpster, because they have to give food stamps to Canadians. The fact that they have to give out food stamps is not a measure of success. Those guys should wake up over there. It is actually a sign of how badly they have governed this country over the last 10 years.

Another report came out, on child care. This is one of our Liberal friends' favourite comments, about child care. Do members know that a child care report came out about child care spaces in Saskatchewan? Ninety-two per cent of people say it is hard to find child care in Saskatchewan since these Liberals brought in their day care program. They promised to make 255,000 day care spaces. They have missed that. They have done only 65% of that.

In the GTA, there are fewer child care spaces now than in 2019, and there are a lot more people. That is going backwards. Before this program, there was a 5% to 7% increase in child care spaces a year in the GTA. Now, for some years, it has actually gone backwards and there are fewer child care spaces. That is what happens when they make promises they cannot commit to fulfilling.

Saskatchewan was actually called a “child care desert” because there are so few spaces right now. Saskatoon and Regina are bad, but if we go out to rural Canada, rural Saskatchewan or Alberta, there are hardly any child care spaces for anyone, especially the ones that are government-run, because they have very strict hours. The people who need child care the most, the people who work shift work, sometimes cannot find a day care because the government ones have kicked out all the private day cares that were open before and worked different hours. Now, even if people got on the list and waited two years to get into the child care program, it does not work the hours that people need it to work anyway. That is what happens when the government takes over where there are actual private sector solutions.

Just to go back to our frustration on this side, I find it very funny that the Liberals always bring up day care in their answers in question period. They talk about programs. Parents would prefer to actually feed their own kids, if they were not taxed to death and could make enough money to feed their own kids, instead of having a government program do it. They talk about the grocery benefit. They brag about giving people food stamps.

We should cut government waste, decrease taxes and let more economic engines run in this country in the energy sector. We lost $60 billion in investments in the energy sector this year.

That is why this Prime Minister is an illusion. The fact is that he is the only leader in the G7 who has led his country into a recession. He cannot blame anyone but himself. If he wants to know what the problem is with Canada right now, why we cannot get anything done and why we cannot grow, he should look in the mirror.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely shocking and very disappointing to hear the member opposite disparage our government's $10-a-day child care program. This is such an important program for families and for women to be involved in the workforce. Hearing Conservatives talk about private options being preferable just shows how out of touch they are.

The American president caused a global war against Iran, which is at risk of causing a global recession with the highest increase in oil prices ever. Will the member opposite criticize the American administration on the record?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, I believe this is the House of Commons in Canada.

However, I want to go back to the member's comments about day care. The member should be ashamed of himself for his day care program, because it has created very few spots. The Liberals have actually misled Canadians, which they do all the time. We brought forward solutions at committee, actually, to make the day care program better, where people could use a voucher and pay for private sector day care or government sector day care if it works. We believe in giving people choices and not forcing them into one thing. I would love for him to go to Hamilton and see how many people are actually looking for day care spaces and cannot get them because the Liberals' program caused private ones to shut down.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the budget implementation bill fails to meet a number of urgent needs in Quebec, as well as elsewhere. In particular, there is the fact that the implementation did not take into account Donald Trump's imposition of tariffs on all aluminum- and steel-based products. That affects 25% of products and accounts for a significant proportion of Quebec's exports. We are proposing a wage subsidy for the most heavily affected sectors.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that and what the Conservatives would do in such a case.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have a steel mill in Regina as well, InterPro Pipe and Steel. It employs a lot of people, so steel is very important to us.

The Prime Minister should have kept his word. He was the one who could deal with Donald Trump. He promised to get a deal done by July 1, 2025. He misled Canadians, and he cannot get the deal done, because he is all talk and no action. The biggest disappointment I have with the Liberal government is the fact that the Prime Minister misled Canadians. He said he would get a deal done with Donald Trump. He said he could handle him. He did not get any of that done.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, recently, there were 112,300 job losses in the first three months of this year alone, with 485,000 more Canadians unemployed since the member for Nepean became the Prime Minister. What is the economic impact of a Prime Minister who does not take our job losses seriously in Canada?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, that speaks for itself. The fact is that the Prime Minister is so out of touch that he refuses to recognize that there has been a recession in Canada. To the point, the Prime Minister has not talked to anyone about a recession since Friday. He has been in hiding. He is in the witness protection program. He will not let the media ask questions. They can take some pictures of him in some meetings, but that is about it.

As I said at the outset of my comments, the first step to fixing a problem is recognizing that there is one. This Prime Minister is trying to bury his head in the sand and does not realize that he has taken Canada down the road to a recession. Among all G7 countries, Canada is the only country that is in an official recession now. The Prime Minister should open his eyes and realize that there is a problem in this country and that he has to get to work to fix the economy.

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

Madam Speaker, when we want to hear something discouraging, we listen to a Conservative.

Since the Prime Minister was elected, just over a year ago, a great deal has been accomplished, and a great deal will continue to be accomplished. Whether the Conservatives want to recognize that is up to them. At the end of the day, we will continue to work for Canadians.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, the biggest issue we have is that the Prime Minister is so out of touch. The fact that Brookfield can make 19% growth in its portfolio but Canada cannot grow its GDP shows whom he is really here for. He is here for Brookfield—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Mirabel.

Before I begin, BC School Sports hosted the high schools' rugby championships in Abbotsford last week. There were thousands of young boys and girls from across the province who competed in sevens and 15s. Our very own in Abbotsford, the Yale Lions senior girls rugby team, won the provincial championships, and the Robert Bateman Timberwolves senior boys team came in second in the province. The WJ Mouat girls, the Yale boys, and the Abbotsford senior boys all did phenomenally well.

We are blessed to have the infrastructure to host such an event in Abbotsford. It truly does lift up the profile of our local economy, and the ability to host major sporting events creates lasting memories for so many young athletes. As the member of Parliament for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, I give special congratulations to all the phenomenal athletes on the Yale girls team in particular. They ran an amazing game of running rugby and totally dominated their opposition. It was just a joy to watch.

My plug is to the Secretary of State for Sport, who has $700 million to hand out to sporting organizations. On a per capita basis, Abbotsford produces more Olympic athletes in the sport of rugby and more national team players than any other community in this country. I hope to see some of those infrastructure dollars there to improve our aging recreational infrastructure.

Now to Bill C-31, a Canadian Venture Capital and Private Equity Association report found that in the first quarter of 2026, Canadian venture capital investing dropped to its lowest level in nearly a decade. Venture capital investment fell nearly 77% quarter over quarter. For every dollar of foreign direct investment coming into Canada, two dollars have left, the largest capital exodus in Canadian history.

Since the Liberals came to power, Canada has lost $1 trillion of investment, largely into the arms of our American friends. It is very unusual for Canadian businesses to go through this significant a period of negative growth as we are experiencing right now.

As we reflect on Bill C-31, why not take some actions to protect small businesses? I believe small businesses have largely been ignored by this government. Many business organizations across Canada are calling for some changes to the tax code, like the small business deduction threshold, which has been set at $500,000 since 2009. The threshold has not kept pace with inflation, rising input costs or higher interest rates. This creates a cliff effect, where growing businesses are pushed into a higher tax bracket, discouraging investment and expansion.

Business organizations have requested that the government increase the small business deduction threshold to $700,000 and index it to the CPI year after year. This would allow our truly small businesses in Canada to take advantage of the 9% tax rate and really make a difference in our economy. Let us support our small businesses.

Second, another thing the government could have done in the last year, which would have made a huge difference in the lives of our entrepreneurs, is that it could have addressed the small business GST threshold. This was created in 1991, and it is currently set at $30,000. It was originally designed to limit GST collection to large businesses. Over two decades later, the threshold value has been eroded by inflation, and more businesses are now required to register, collect and remit GST than originally intended.

I believe the government, in the last year, could have changed its policy and increased the threshold to $60,000 to reduce red tape for truly small businesses, the ones where people go to work every day and pay lots of taxes in Canada. Including these measures in Bill C-31, along with other GST/HST adjustments, would have provided SMEs with real financial relief, yet nothing has changed in the last year.

The Liberals are still looking for big headline wins, while forgetting that most people in our private sector do in fact work for small firms. They are forgetting about small businesses that do not have lawyers who can apply for complex programs. They just do not have the time to do this, because they are actually running a business. Let me give an example: the tariff rebate programs.

At a time when Canadian small businesses have faced real economic pressure because of American tariffs, the government has not come forward with meaningful support to help them. It promised that the tariff revenues would be reinvested to help the sectors hit the hardest, but that promise has simply not been met. The regional tariff response initiative was supposed to be the vehicle for that support. Instead it has become a case study in poor execution.

The Secretary of State for Small Business has consistently framed the program as accessible and supportive, but in reality it has created more red tape, cutting out local small businesses. In January this year, the National Post reported that 80% of businesses were not even aware that this program existed, and only 8% said they intended to apply. In British Columbia, seven out of 10 businesses were not even eligible for the program itself, despite paying those tariffs. CFIB president, Dan Kelly, called the regional tariff response initiative totally useless.

The challenges facing small businesses are not unique. I heard many of the concerns from business leaders across the Fraser Valley earlier this month at the Fraser Valley Economic Summit 2026 in Abbotsford, when more than 200 leaders from business, local government, indigenous communities, educational institutions and industry came together to discuss the future of our regional economy. Throughout the summit, speakers and participants spoke about the need for transportation corridors, trade-enabling infrastructure, industrial land, workforce development, housing and energy systems. They asked how Canada can improve productivity if businesses cannot access those infrastructure dollars.

The Fraser Valley is one of Canada's most important economic regions. The region is expected to grow by nearly 47% by 2050, bringing new opportunities for investment, job creation and agricultural exports in particular. Realizing that potential will require governments to focus on the practical conditions that allow communities to grow and succeed. We see this reflected across multiple sectors of the economy, including financial services.

Canada benefits from having some of the largest and most stable banks in the world. However, there remains a significant gap between the country's largest financial institutions and smaller local providers. A local example is Tru Cooperative Bank, formerly First West Credit Union, which began its federal continuance process in 2018 but did not receive final approval until 2026.

If Canada wants greater competition in financial services, we need to create the conditions for strong, Canadian-owned, mid-sized institutions to grow and to compete nationally. This is in line with the policies of every political party in Canada: free trade between our provinces, more economic exchange between Canadians. It took eight years to get federal approval for one of the most established cooperatives in British Columbia. That is not acceptable. If Canada wants greater competition in financial services, it needs to look at reducing red tape and prioritizing the private enterprises that are willing to take the risk and put up the capital to expand and offer better services to Canada.

We could say the same thing about open banking right now as well, and the same policies apply to infrastructure. The government announced, in the budget last year, the build communities strong fund as a major investment in those fields. The program does allocate $6 billion directly for regionally significant projects, including climate adaptation and flood protection infrastructure.

I implore the House of Commons not to forget Abbotsford and the Fraser Valley when they think of the allocation of that money. In my riding in the Fraser Valley, the Trans Mountain pipeline sends 37% of its oil across the flood zone into the United States. That is billions of dollars into the coffers every single year to the Government of Canada.

The recent Enbridge pipeline expansion goes right through the flood zone as well. We have a major border crossing, we have an international airport, and we have a Southern Railway line that brings billions of dollars of Canadian goods into America every year, benefiting our country, yet since the floods in 2021, we have not received any infrastructure dollars to protect one of the most important economic regions in all of Canada. Again, I ask the government to not forget about the Fraser Valley. The government needs it to accomplish its goals. Canada needs our region to build up better.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talks about more trade between provinces, and he expresses some frustration. Literally within a couple of months of the Prime Minister's coming to office, the newly elected government, just over a year ago, was able to take down the national barriers; has met with the premiers and with territorial and indigenous leaders; and continues to encourage provincial jurisdictions to be able to take down provincial barriers that are in place.

I think that is something the member needs to recognize. In a federalist system, we need collaboration and co-operation. I am wondering if the member recognizes that, in that federal system, the federal government has to work with other jurisdictions. From a federal perspective, the Prime Minister has taken down those barriers. We did it in legislation just prior to last summer.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, indeed, the Conservatives voted in favour of removing all federal regulations on interprovincial trade, but the fact of the matter is that the Prime Minister promised there would be free trade amongst the provinces in Canada. What we needed in that moment was federal leadership, for the Prime Minister to say to the provinces and territories that if they do not remove their barriers in professional services, financial services and transportation, there will be consequences.

The Prime Minister was not willing to expend the necessary political capital to remove the provincially related barriers to interprovincial trade in Canada. That is a failure of his leadership, and a promise broken that he made.

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

Madam Speaker, typically, we used to be able to count on the Conservatives to champion decentralization and the protection of provincial jurisdictions, sometimes even at the cost of cutting transfers to the provinces.

I just heard what my colleague said. He literally said that, in areas of jurisdiction that fall exclusively under the provinces and Quebec, like professional associations, showing leadership at the federal level means making threats to the provinces, imposing conditions on them and ultimately telling them that if they do not do what the Prime Minister wants on a Tuesday morning, their funding will be cut.

Has the Conservative DNA changed over the past few weeks?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member for Mirabel needs to ask his constituents why it is easier for a small and medium-sized enterprise in his province to trade with the northeast United States. Why is it easier for a Quebec company to do business with America than with a company in British Columbia?

I believe in a federation where it is easier to do trade among Canadian provinces first, before doing it with a foreign country. If the Bloc Québécois continues taking that position, it is going to minimize its economic impact and the ability of its province's enterprises to grow accordingly.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on an excellent speech outlining some of the significant concerns that we have about the bill: number one, about the Liberals' budget, and number two, about the expedited process by which the government is trying to ram this through with its new-found majority government. We have concerns, and I think Canadians have concerns, about the economic outlook of this country. We have concerns about the approaches that the government is taking by not only using time allocation here in the House but also shutting down committees.

I wonder if the member has a bit more to say about the concerns that his constituents are relaying to him about the heavy-handedness of this brand new, manufactured Liberal majority government.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that my constituents are very apprehensive right now. They have heard a lot of mixed messages from the Prime Minister. On one hand, he says that we are at economic war with the United States and will take heavy-handed language here in Canada. The next day, he goes down to America and says we need to “make America great again.” They really do not know what to make of the rhetoric. What all the businesses in my region talk about is maintaining our market access to their American partners.

Canadians across this country have long-established business relationships with their American customers and partners. We need to secure that while also looking at opportunities abroad. That is a good thing, but make no mistake; we cannot replace the American relationship, and the Prime Minister needs to be clear on that point, because it is causing concern by the many Canadian businesses that are reliant on their American partners. We have to maintain that market access first and foremost, which is going to require more political leadership and the government's being transparent about what type of deals it is cutting with the American administration and whether that serves Canada's interests well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems we are doomed to disagree with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford today, not least because we appreciate the sound of the voice of the Assistant Deputy Speaker, who sat in the chair just before you. Beyond that, I would ask you, if possible—

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I agree that there is too much noise in the House. I would ask that the noise stop.

The hon. member for Mirabel.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have a Conservative colleague who has come right out and asked us here in the House why it is easier for a company in southern Quebec to do business with New York state than with British Columbia. I think there is a reason why geography must remain a compulsory course for high school students. It is very important. The answer is that there is a continent separating Quebec and B.C. and, when it comes to interprovincial barriers to trade, some members of my colleague's party have described bilingual signage and French-language signage as barriers to interprovincial trade.

When I hear the Conservatives saying that the Prime Minister should threaten the provinces, that he should tell them to get rid of anything that people in western Canada see as a barrier or else the provinces will face the Prime Minister's wrath, I think we have heard better arguments in the House.

Members can see that the lights are out behind me, and there is a reason for that. It is because this is a dark afternoon for Parliament, because we are seized with Bill C-31, a very technical 300‑page bill with many amendments that are questionable or that need to be clearly debated in the House.

However, the government is asking for carte blanche. It is telling us that it is going to impose time allocation and rush through this debate. Why is the government doing that? It is because this government has become arrogant. It secured a majority with 50% plus one, because that is enough for the Liberals here. This government is imposing closure motion after closure motion. It is shutting down committee work and ordering in camera proceedings on the Driver Inc. issue, when the chair of the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities has been attending events put on by some of the organizations behind this scandal. What the Liberals are choosing to do is to put an end to debate.

In addition, in terms of what happened with Bill C‑31, I consider it to be an injustice to parliamentarians. We had requested a technical briefing on this 300‑page bill. It is a lot of work for the party critics, because it is a bill that discusses everything and nothing, not only the budget, as the Speaker confirmed in his ruling on the point of order I had raised regarding division 17.

We asked for a technical briefing. We did not get a response. A week went by. Two weeks went by. Three weeks went by. We finally got an answer last Thursday, with a technical briefing organized at the last minute, when a number of critics could not even participate because their committees were sitting. Today, we are told that we are going to rush through debating this bill, even though parliamentarians have not been given the tools they need to study it.

When we were debating time allocation earlier, the heritage minister was here. He was the one doing the government's dirty work for today. The heritage minister is the one discussing the budget today. That seems to be the arrangement. The heritage minister told us that we did not need a technical briefing. People can go look at the blues. They will be outraged that this is happening in the House of Commons. He told us that we did not need a technical briefing, that 300 pages is a long read and that three weeks is not enough time to read it. Today, he comes back and tells us that the government is going to impose time allocation, that we are going to debate all of this within a few hours and that that is plenty of time for us. I know that the heritage minister is smarter than some of the things he says in the House make him seem, but that does not mean he is entitled to treat us like idiots. That is a problem.

What is the problem with this bill? We could spend hours discussing that. This bill expands subsidies to the oil industry and allows hydrogen produced from methane to be classified as clean hydrogen, whereas in Quebec, for example, hydrogen must be produced from renewable resources to be classified as clean. We recently had industry experts in to testify during the pre-budget consultations, and they clearly explained to us that—from a scientific perspective, as accepted by the industry—hydrogen produced from methane does not qualify as clean.

Why is the government hiding this in a 300‑page document that will see virtually zero debate in the House? It is because it is in cahoots with the oil companies and is subsidizing them. The member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie just quit over this, and now here it is in Bill C-31. It deserves some debate, at the very least, especially because we know this bill is going to pass now that the Liberals have a majority. All we are asking for is a debate to share the views of those who elected us and who disagree with this, but we are being denied that debate in a democracy.

Some measures are designed to give the government more power and allow for less transparency. Some measures limit who can file complaints with the procurement ombudsman and restrict the complaints that can be reviewed, at a time when spending, particularly military spending, is set to reach record levels and procurement will play a greater role than ever before.

What does that mean? It means that the government does not care about protecting citizens, which is the whole point of having an ombudsman. For the government, an ombudsman is a problem. Obviously, the Liberals are not going to abolish the position, but it is like they are plucking every feather from a duck's wings and telling it that it should still try to fly. That is what they are doing. That is exactly what they are doing. That is a problem, and it deserves to be debated.

Division 17 will be voted on separately and has nothing to do with the budget. It was not in the budget speech. It was not in any document. To reduce the backlog of air passenger complaints, the Liberals are allowing the minister to have complaints handled by private companies that could potentially be chosen by the airlines. There may be an issue of parliamentary privilege here, because we hear that Air Canada was getting ready to select companies before we parliamentarians even saw the bill.

The issue here is no longer just about moving closure, cutting off debate or bypassing committees. The issue is that airlines may have seen a bill before we, the elected members, did.

I understand the seriousness of what I am saying, but that is what we suspect.

Here is the context: President Trump increased tariffs based on a new formula in early April. They now stand at 25% on a wide range of goods, and 25% of Quebec's exports are affected. Quebec is the hardest-hit province. However, when the Liberals tabled the budget update, they failed to take that into account. They used the wrong figures and calculations.

They announced no measures to help the businesses that would be affected by this new tariff formula. We had to wait weeks, and the Prime Minister actually learned about it from us, during question period. I am not joking. We were the ones who informed the Prime Minister, in April, that the formula had been revised. The first time, he was taken aback. The second time, he told us he would provide a response during the budget statement. There was nothing when the budget statement was tabled, and we had to wait.

There is nothing in any of this about enabling companies that will have to temporarily halt production due to these tariffs to keep their workers on the payroll. These workers will end up relying on employment insurance. Given the fund's actuarial rules, EI cannot withstand two shocks at once.

That is why we are calling for a measure that costs the same amount, namely, wage subsidies, which will ensure that EI can continue to be appropriately managed without raising contributions for businesses that need something other than higher taxes these days. We have been ignored. There is nothing about EI reform. We are just lurching from one temporary measure to the next.

There is nothing for seniors. There is nothing for the forestry industry, nothing about buying back the countervailing duties that are paid to the United States in advance and that will eventually result in a victory for our timber exporters years from now. During those years, our forestry companies have no cash flow. We are asking the government to purchase this asset, which is money tied up in the United States in the form of countervailing duties, to give them some breathing room. It is an asset. It does not even count toward the deficit. It is an asset. There is nothing about this.

There is nothing about Quebec's request for $733 million for the influx of asylum seekers. There is nothing about the $814 million stolen from Quebec. There is only more and more subsidies to oil companies.

What is this bill, then? It is an incomplete and ill-conceived bill with so much potential for controversy that the government wants to avoid debate. There is no clear indication that it will be passed before we leave. This bill could be passed in the fall, so there was no need for a closure motion. We have a government that is being run like a business and that is trying to reduce government accountability and transparency.

I stand with all those who think that Parliament deserves better than what the Liberals are currently doing.

[Serge Cormier, Liberal, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in the last Parliament, I introduced a bill in the House to create a school food program. Every Bloc Québécois member voted in favour of the bill. We now have a school food program across Canada.

During consideration of the latest budget, the Bloc Québécois voted against the measure that would make this program permanent. The member mentioned seniors. The Canada groceries and essentials benefit will help some seniors get through these tough times.

Why does the Bloc Québécois sometimes vote in favour of certain measures that benefit families, yet suddenly vote against other such measures when it comes time to help those who need it most?

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

Mr. Speaker, questions like that are a waste of time.

Even a bad 300-page novel will have seven or eight good pages. That does not mean the whole book makes for pleasant reading. That is the government's same old strategy. It throws a few good things in with a bunch of unacceptable things. Backbenchers stand up and cry foul when we vote against the bill as a whole. If they think it is so important that we vote for the bill, let them ask for a separate vote on those items.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Canada is facing serious economic challenges. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are struggling to make ends meet, yet the government has chosen to shut down debate on a massive omnibus budget bill that would affect every region in the country.

I would like to ask my Bloc colleague this. Regardless of our differences on policy, does he believe Canadians are well served when the government limits debate on legislation of this size and importance? What message does it send when a government facing so many economic challenges seems unwilling to allow Parliament the time needed to properly examine its budget?

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

Mr. Speaker, if we had had more time to debate this bill, we could have discussed the parts that should have been removed. That would have made the member for Acadie—Bathurst happy. We could have discussed the parts that could have been voted on separately. Since the member for Acadie—Bathurst is going to vote in favour of time allocation, we will not be able to do so.

However, all joking aside, time allocation does serve a purpose. The government usually begins by letting things take their course. We have debates, and legislation moves forward, but all of a sudden, a roadblock springs up. Opposition parties sometimes act in bad faith. At some point, since the government has budgetary responsibilities, it will have no choice but to impose time allocation to move the process forward in the face of the opposition parties' bad faith. That is what it is for. That is why this standing order exists.

In this case, however, the government introduced a bill, denied the opposition parties a technical briefing, did not put the bill on the agenda for debate, and then suddenly on a Friday morning, it announced that it was going to limit debate because nothing had been done for three weeks and time was now of the essence.

That is not how time allocation should be used.

[Jessica Fancy-Landry, Liberal, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question regarding Quebec.

You have built real economic leverage through your sectors like aerospace, batteries and clean energy. I want to know if the member agrees that—