John Brassard

[Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1, December 2nd, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said “Who cares?” during his visit to the U.A.E. recently about the state of trade talks with the U.S., he meant it, and here is why.

No one should be naive in thinking that the Prime Minister left a $1-trillion company, making millions of dollars in both salary and deferred compensations, for some virtuous reason to make $400,000 as the Prime Minister, to negotiate a trade deal or save us from ourselves. Almost everything in the budget implementation act is set up to use the power of the Prime Minister's Office to benefit a group of well-connected Liberal insiders, lobbyists and the Prime Minister's corporate buddies.

This was a process that started in 2020, when the Prime Minister was appointed as the economic adviser to Justin Trudeau while still acting as chair of Brookfield Asset Management. Having Trudeau in power was a dream come true for the incestuous cabal of Liberal elites. While Trudeau was playing prime minister, the pieces being put into place to ensure that many if not all of the public financial instruments, green investment funds and policies the Prime Minister started pushing when he was pulling Trudeau's strings as his economic adviser aligned with Brookfield's strategy and success.

Last week we found out from Brookfield's chief operating officer that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in carried interest payments from his company's success related to climate and infrastructure schemes he set up. These funds could generate tens of millions of dollars in carried interest for the Prime Minister personally, depending on their performance over the next decade.

However, here is the problem. The Prime Minister knows what he owned before the blind trust was set up. Every time he makes a decision on infrastructure, energy or climate policy, or with tax incentives that are in the BIA, this will help Brookfield in areas where Brookfield is deeply invested. Questions should arise. Is any given policy for Canadians, for Brookfield or for the Prime Minister?

Critics will argue that they have set up a blind trust and an ethics screen, and that this is enough to ensure public confidence and trust, but Brookfield's interest from artificial intelligence, modular housing, carbon capture, nuclear and the transition model of public risk for private return he set up while advising Trudeau will make the Prime Minister millions, and he knows it.

Furthermore, the screen is administered by two political appointees of the Prime Minister. We found out last week that the Prime Minister met with Brookfield executives privately in the Prime Minister's office in October, which would cause a reasonable person to think that the screen is not being wilfully applied, given the fact that the Prime Minister is not supposed to have any interaction with Brookfield, either its people or its entities.

Who cares? We all should, because democracy depends on trust. If Canadians believe that their leaders are making decisions to enrich their companies or themselves, confidence in our institution erodes even more than it has under the Liberals. This is not about partisan politics; it is about accountability. Canadians deserve leaders who serve the public interest, not private portfolios.

My assessment of the budget is simple. For people who support expansive government involvement in every aspect of our economy; subsidies given to companies that would otherwise invest their own capital; Brookfield's deep involvement in policies shaped by its former chair, the current Prime Minister, policies that he and the company stand to gain from; bloating debt and deficits that burden our families, seniors and future generations; and a system that gives Liberal insiders and lobbyists unfettered access to the Treasury while Canada drifts closer and closer towards a kleptocracy, this is the budget—

[Committees of the House, November 28th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, entitled “Proposed Review of the Conflict of Interest Act”.

[Ethics, November 28th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, Brookfield's COO also confirmed that the umbilical cord between the Prime Minister and his company will stay attached until 2034, because the fund the Prime Minister set up will mature then. That means if it does well, he does really well.

Here is the problem. He knows full well what is in his blind trust and is using the power of his office to promote policies that benefit his company and him. AI, modular housing, carbon capture, nuclear and the transition model of public risk for private returns he set up while advising Trudeau will make him millions.

How is this ethical, if not illegal?

[Ethics, November 28th, 2025]

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's trust may be blind, but the math is not. This week, we found out from Brookfield's chief operating officer that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in carried interest payments from his company's success related to the climate and infrastructure schemes he set up. Many, if not all, of the public financial instruments, funds and policies the Prime Minister started pushing when he was pulling Trudeau's strings as his economic adviser in 2020 align with Brookfield's strategy and success.

How is it ethical when the Prime Minister is using the power of his office to benefit him and his company?

[Budget Implementation Act, No. 1, November 27th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak fast because I have a lot to cover in seven minutes. A lot has been said about the budget implementation act over the last several days. There are a couple of highlights I want to focus on.

The first thing I want to talk about is the deficit. We heard that it is up to $78 billion. It was supposed to be $62 billion. The Prime Minister promised a lower debt-to-GDP ratio. He is raising both it and inflation. He promised to spend less. He is spending $90 billion more, and that works out to about $5,400 more in inflationary spending per household when families can least afford it. He is adding $321.7 billion to the federal debt over the next five years. That is more than twice the $154 billion that Trudeau would have added over the same period.

Let us think about that. Those are staggering numbers, and this is really going to impact affordability for Canadians. It adds $10 million to our debt every hour, and the federal debt is now $1.35 trillion. The interest on the debt will be $55.6 billion for 2025-26, and that is more than the Canadian health transfers of $54.7 billion. GST revenue is $54.4 billion, and it amounts to about $3,360 per Canadian household. The GDP has already grown. It is just getting worse.

I want to spend my time focusing on something that is not in the budget. It is a critical issue for us locally in central Ontario, particularly in the riding that I represent and the riding of the member for Simcoe—Grey, who is sitting behind me right now. We have many members who have an interest in Lake Simcoe and the health of Lake Simcoe.

The Canada Water Agency is addressed in the budget. There are minor increases in funding, but one thing that is not in the budget implementation act, nor was it in the budget, is the restoration of the long-standing demand that I have made and members whose ridings surround Lake Simcoe have made. It is about the health, sustainability and viability of that precious crown jewel. There is not one dime allocated toward the health and the protection of Lake Simcoe. I am profoundly disappointed.

We made a commitment to reinstate the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. There was $59 million initiated by the Conservative government back under former prime minister Stephen Harper. We saw measurable improvements in Lake Simcoe's health, quality and invasive species, as well as the land restoration surrounding the lake. It was having a dramatic impact. In 2019, the former finance minister came to the shores of Lake Simcoe and promised a restoration of the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund. Conservatives had made a commitment to restore it, and the Liberals have reneged on that offer since then. We have not seen one dime coming to Lake Simcoe.

There was an announcement of some minor funding, but in terms of that protection plan, that dedicated fund for Lake Simcoe, we have not seen it at all. Just two days ago, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition issued a report on the current health of Lake Simcoe. I will remind members again that it is the largest freshwater lake in Ontario. It is a four-season destination. The economic benefits of Lake Simcoe, as a four-season destination, are hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue. It is generated in businesses, seasonal fishing and cottages. We depend on the lake for many things, not to mention drinking water, which is drawn from that lake as well.

In the report, the coalition talked about the current state of the lake. It talked about phosphorus pollution, fish habitat and fish health. It talked about invasive species. It stated, “Quagga mussels have overtaken zebra mussels; round goby are widespread; starry stonewort is entrenched, though it has gone through 'boom and bust' cycles; and in 2024, water soldier was confirmed near Keswick and Innisfil as a significant emerging threat”.

In fact, through a friend of mine, Barry Wiszniowski, I had an opportunity to fly over the lake in his aircraft. We flew over the water soldier that is now permeating and rising above Cook's Bay. It is quite relevant and prevalent in Cook's Bay right now. As an invasive species, it has the potential to create incredible damage.

In its executive summary, the Rescue Lake Simcoe Coalition talked about what we see 16 years after the Lake Simcoe protection plan, which was a provincial initiative. It said, “The costs of inaction are mounting. Declining water quality drives higher municipal expenses for stormwater systems, with significant deferred maintenance for stormwater ponds and linear drainage assets”. It said that the “watershed remains under significant ecological stress.” The report, and the review of the report, talked about the current scientific conditions and the policy trends, and they were asking that Lake Simcoe have a dedicated fund that is directed, again, in a similar way to what the Conservatives had initiated. I think this was early 2012; I am gapping on the date, but there was $59 million, as I said, that was dedicated towards the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, so members of the coalition are asking for the restoration of that fund. Again, as I said, they are asking to “Anchor Lake Simcoe Within the Federal Freshwater Action Plan”.

My colleagues and I, in ridings that surround Lake Simcoe, have written numerous environmental ministers. We have written the Prime Minister, pleading with the government to restore the Lake Simcoe cleanup fund, which was a dedicated fund that saw measurable improvements, that put boots on the ground and that worked with the conservation authorities to make sure that the health and vitality of Lake Simcoe was to be protected, not just for now, but for generations to come. It is that critical to our area, and I am disappointed that it is not in the budget.

[Budget Implementation Act, No. 1, November 27th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a hard-working member. His riding is adjacent to mine. He is well-respected in his community. I know he works hard.

I know he is dealing with an issue that I am keeping an eye on. He referenced the DND expropriation of almost 4,000 acres of farmland. This is prime agricultural land. There are generational family farms. The Simcoe County Federation of Agriculture is engaged, trying to do everything it can to stop this.

Could the member comment a little further? Obviously, when land is expropriated, people do not get the true value for it, and all the significant investments that farmers have made in that area will be lost as well.

[Ethics, November 26th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, he shrugs off critical trade talks with a smug “Who cares?” Here is something he cannot shrug off that everyone should care about.

Despite the conflict of interest and ethics screen he has on Brookfield, we found out this week that the Prime Minister met with Brookfield executives behind closed doors in his office in October, proving that his ethics screen is more like a smokescreen. The Prime Minister and Brookfield stand to gain millions from his policies. He knows he cannot have any contact with those at Brookfield, but he met with them anyway.

Why would he meet with Brookfield knowing he is barred from having any contact with it?

[International Trade, November 26th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister says Canadians need to sacrifice more and accept a lower standard of living and quality of life, while he says “Who cares?” about critical trade talks with the U.S., acting more like an advance team for Brookfield than standing up for Canadians. Everywhere he goes, a deal for Brookfield follows while tariffs stay in place or go up.

We learned this week that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in bonuses from Brookfield's success. Why does the Prime Minister have his elbows up for himself and his Brookfield buddies, but says “Who cares?” about Canadian businesses and working families affected by tariffs?

[Charitable Giving in Barrie South—Innisfil, November 24th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, as we begin the Christmas season, it is important to remember the spirit of giving and compassion that defines the time of year.

In Barrie and Innisfil, local charities, such as Community for Kids, Christmas Cheer, Senior Wish Association, the Salvation Army, our local churches and the Rotary clubs, work tirelessly to support families, provide meals and bring hope to those in need.

Food banks in both Barrie and Innisfil have seen a demand increase and a rise in use. Speaking with Barrie Food Bank executive director Karen Shuh over the weekend, I learned that it has seen a 16% increase in usage year over year. Sadly, people who never imagined they would have to use the food bank now are. The same is true in Innisfil.

By donating or volunteering, we can make a real difference in the lives of our neighbours and strengthen the bonds that make our communities so special. This Christmas, let us come together to share kindness and ensure that everyone can experience the joy of the season.

[Government Appointments, November 18th, 2025]

Mr. Speaker, what is the Liberals' response to the interim PBO's warnings? They put him on notice that they will be looking to replace him with someone who has “tact and discretion”. Presumably, that means replacing the budget watchdog with someone from the Prime Minister's inner circle of corporate buddies, who take their marching orders from him.

The independence and oversight of the budget watchdog is designed to call out deception and raise the alarm, to ensure that every MP and Canadian knows when the books are being cooked.

Why are the watchdogs who are challenging the wolves on the credit card budget being threatened?