House Publications
The Debates are the report—transcribed, edited, and corrected—of what is said in the House. The Journals are the official record of the decisions and other transactions of the House. The Order Paper and Notice Paper contains the listing of all items that may be brought forward on a particular sitting day, and notices for upcoming items.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
45th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
EDITED HANSARD • No. 060
CONTENTS
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
House of Commons Debates
Volume 152
No. 060
1st SESSION
45th PARLIAMENT
OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD)
Tuesday, November 25, 2025
Speaker: The Honourable Francis Scarpaleggia
Routine Proceedings
[Routine Proceedings]
[Translation]
International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to address the House as the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville. My journey since December 6, 1989, has led me to live a range of experiences, and today I draw the attention of the House to the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This is an extremely important day for me.
It is a day that is recognized around the world, marking the beginning of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence.
[English]
It is a day to say clearly that this is not a private matter. It is a social issue, a human rights issue and a matter of public safety.
[Translation]
My name is Nathalie Provost. I survived the Polytechnique femicide on December 6, 1989, the day 14 of my sisters lost their lives simply because they were women and they just wanted to fulfill all of their dreams.
I rise today to speak as a woman, and obviously as a survivor, but also as a federal member and as someone who has witnessed the consequences of violent sexism. I am rising here in the House on behalf of those who can no longer speak and those who are still waiting to be protected.
Today's date, November 25, is significant; it was selected to honour the memory of the Mirabal sisters, activists from the Dominican Republic who were murdered on November 25, 1960. They died for standing up to dictatorship and patriarchy.
[English]
In 1999, the United Nations officially declared it the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, with a universal message: Violence against women is a violation of human rights.
[Translation]
In 1991, Canada established December 6 as a national day in memory of my colleagues, the 14 women who were murdered at Polytechnique. The violence I experienced in 1989 was undeniably an act of violence against women and an unmistakable case of femicide that stood out for its unprecedented scale. The fact is that in Canada and around the world today, a woman or girl is killed every 48 hours. It is a much too common occurrence, so we have an important duty to remember.
Femicide is a societal problem that concerns us all and cuts across part lines. One in three women in Canada will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. I am an extremely privileged woman. However, I look back to the story of my mother, the story of my maternal grandmother, and the experiences I have heard about from children and adolescents. I know that this reality concerns us all because men are also our allies. They are our fathers, our brothers, our friends, our companions, and our partners.
All of us know someone who has experienced violence against women, and yet, less than 10% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. Violence against women and gender-based violence goes far beyond headlines.
[English]
They affect every region of the country and every social sphere.
[Translation]
Rates of violence against trans women and non-binary people are above the national average. 2SLGBTQI+ people often face higher rates of violence. Obviously, we must also turn our attention to indigenous girls and women. They are six times more likely to be murdered than non-indigenous women. They experience higher rates of sexual violence and exploitation. They disappear, and their homicide cases go cold. That is unacceptable.
It is unacceptable that, despite reconciliation being at the heart of our values, Canada has still not managed to bring these numbers down. This should not be about numbers. These are human beings, women who deserve our full attention, women who deserve to live their lives, and like my sisters, they have every right to chase their dreams. They face particularly difficult challenges.
I do not have any statistics on racialized women with me, but I have no doubt it is worse for them than for women who, like me, are non-indigenous and white. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and I really hope to draw our collective attention to all the marginalized women out there.
Today, we are not here just to review the facts with respect to our government's measures. We are here to take action and change the conditions that enable this violence.
[English]
Actions speak louder than words.
[Translation]
Budget 2025 invests $223.4 million over five years, with $44.7 million ongoing, to strengthen our action in response to gender-based violence, support women's organizations, and advance the vision of a Canada that is free from violence. This is part of an overall budget investment of $660.5 million over five years to further advance gender equality, support women's groups, and assist groups that support the 2SLGBTQI+ community. We are doing even more to make bail more difficult to obtain in cases of sexual offences. Bill C‑14 was introduced to strengthen protections for victims and uphold their right to safety and justice.
Lastly, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Indigenous Services Canada have committed funds for the construction and operation of 38 emergency shelters and 39 transitional housing units across the country as part of the indigenous shelter and transitional housing initiative. The federal government has proposed an investment of $1 billion in transitional and supportive housing through Build Canada Homes. These are all concrete measures. They are things we can do right here and right now.
I hope this message will be heard over the next 16 days, and every day that follows. I think that we, as the elected members of Parliament, must work together to make Canada a great place to live, a great place for all women to live. As we know and as we have discussed, the rise in social isolation, the rise of masculinism, the fragmentation and polarization of ideas are all trends that primarily and seriously impact the health and safety of women, and the health and safety of people in general, especially those who are marginalized.
Most of all, these trends are going to impact our collective well-being and our prosperity. If we truly wish to build Canada strong, we must build it with everyone, including women, by working to end violence against women.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague, the Secretary of State (Nature).
I believe that there is no such thing as too many opportunities to talk about women and violence against women. We have the chance to talk about it here from November 25 to December 10, although we should be talking about it all year round. In fact, that is what we do at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, but I will come back to that. The period from November 25 to December 10 is a key time of year when men and women come together to look at what is happening in our communities, in our country, in our provinces, in our cities and in our towns. How are women's issues being approached? How are women being treated?
I want to share some background information about the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. There are three key dates, as my colleague mentioned. In 1999, the United Nations declared November 25 as the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
There is obviously December 6, a date that is painful for all Canadians and, it goes without saying, for all Quebeckers to remember. I am the same age as the women who were murdered on December 6 simply for being women and perhaps for studying in traditionally male-dominated fields. They were murdered. My colleague called them her 14 sisters, but I would call them our 14 sisters.
There is also December 10, Human Rights Day, which celebrates the adoption of the landmark Universal Declaration of Human Rights back in 1948.
The news for women is not especially positive today. The picture is not completely bleak, but neither is it very rosy when it comes to women's safety. A woman or girl is murdered in Canada every 48 hours, meaning every other day. In 2024, 240 women and girls were murdered. There have been approximately 15 femicides in Quebec over the past year. These women, these people, were murdered simply for being women.
Our committee is in the middle of a study about women's safety and the Criminal Code. We have heard chilling statements from witnesses. They told us there is an epidemic of violence against women. I would go even further and call it a national crisis. I think we have a national crisis on our hands when it comes to the status of women and women's safety.
Here are some statistics. Sexual assault is up 76% since 2015. Homicides are up 30%, and violent crime is up 55%. Two or three weeks ago, the Liberal Minister of Justice said that the violent crime index in Canada has increased by 41%. According to police across Canada, the number of female victims of domestic violence has risen by 40% nationwide, which is very high. That is extremely concerning.
A number of initiatives have been implemented. Every small step, every small gesture, no matter how small, is important and brings us one step closer to being able to keep women safe.
I drew up a list of the work we have done. Perhaps some will say that the women on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, and the men who sometimes attend, are hyperactive. The committee has conducted about nine studies that have resulted in resolutions, recommendations and observations that have been presented to the current government to get things moving and speed up action to improve protection for women.
Let us talk about coercive control. As I was saying earlier, the committee did a study on that topic, and the report will be tabled today.
The House passed a bill on this subject that even made it to the Senate. It was Bill C‑332, if memory serves.
This bill had to do with criminalizing coercive control. This is no one's fault, but that bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called. I would therefore like to issue my colleagues a challenge. If this is not already in the works, would it be possible to fast-track the bill to get it moving forward again? The House of Commons passed it, and it got to the Senate. It did not have much further to go.
I hope that the Chair will allow me to make a somewhat more partisan comment. I am not the most partisan person here, so I hope he will indulge me.
First, there is no full-time minister for the status of women. We know that the minister has other jobs and other portfolios to deal with. She is not just responsible for the status of women. Second, we learned in the budget statement that the funding for the department responsible for the status of women has been cut by 78%. Off the top of my head, I think that can be found on page 209 of the French version of the budget.
It seems to me that there is an inconsistency when government members who are wearing the ribbon are presenting these kinds of numbers and rising in the House to pay lip service to women's issues, while, at the same time, cutting the budget to protect women. Something is wrong here.
I would therefore urge the government to bring back Bill C‑332 and fast-track it. We all agreed on it. Let us hit one out of the park and move forward with a bill to criminalize coercive control. All of the stakeholders we have met with in recent weeks are calling for that. While we are at it, perhaps the government should also reconsider the budget it has allocated to the Minister for Women.
I will close by saying that one of the arguments in favour of criminalizing coercive control is that coercive control, as invisible as it may be, can lead to physical violence.
I am sure my colleagues know where things go from there.
Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to extend my regards to the Secretary of State for Nature, a Polytechnique survivor, and to the member for Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, with whom I have the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. As she mentioned, it is an extremely active committee.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I also wish to recognize the women and men who dedicate themselves every day to combatting violence against women. It is a never-ending battle that sees both wins and losses, but it continues to be fought tirelessly, with conviction and courage, by psychologists, social workers, women's shelter workers, police officers, and many other stakeholders of both sexes. They are all working relentlessly to fight violence against women. We are profoundly grateful to them and we unreservedly support their vital contribution to this cause.
In Quebec, November 25 marks the start of the “12 Days of Action to End Violence Against Women” campaign. I encourage all Quebeckers to use this time to reflect, to take action, to talk with others, to raise awareness, and to participate in events that focus on eliminating violence against women.
We must maintain constant vigilance against any sort of backsliding. We have seen some examples of that. According to the federal government, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, which is observed annually on November 25, is “a global call to prevent and address gender-based violence...in all its forms”. The government says it is a “global call”, and yet shortly before this important date, the Prime Minister struck a deal with the United Arab Emirates and declared that Canada's foreign policy was no longer feminist.
According to Human Rights Watch, the United Arab Emirates' penal code “reintroduced the criminalization of consensual nonmarital sex....Unmarried couples who have a child face no less than two years in prison....Unmarried pregnant women face difficulties accessing prenatal health care and registering their children”. In the United Arab Emirates, domestic violence is tolerated and women must submit to men in matters relating to marriage, divorce and married life. In short, Emirati women are second-class citizens. The Prime Minister knows this; the Prime Minister knew this.
How did he react? He said that Canada no longer has a feminist foreign policy. We are far from a “global call” to “eliminate violence against women”. What is more, the Prime Minister failed to appoint a minister for the status of women to his first cabinet. He is not doing anything meaningful to get rid of assault weapons, despite the willingness expressed by previous Liberal governments to do so. The Prime Minister was unaware of PolyRemembers during the last election campaign. What this tells us is that the struggle for equality, for the advancement of women's issues and for the elimination of violence are far from over.
The Liberal Party is looking more and more like the Reform Party. It is oil, oil, oil and nothing to fight climate change. It is oil, oil, oil and nothing for gender equality, nothing to help eliminate violence against women. When the Prime Minister goes abroad to the G20 and says that Canada's foreign policy is not feminist, he is saying that money matters more to us than women. The Conservatives like hearing the Prime Minister make such statements. Former Conservative leader Erin O'Toole, in particular, was delighted by this. Abandoning feminism now, as the Prime Minister has done, establishes a value system in which women are clearly not at the top. The Prime Minister's term is off to a bad start.
We all have a responsibility to work to eliminate violence against women.
Every time a government waters down its discourse, every time it is tempted to sideline feminism because it might curtail business, every time it opts for neglect, silence, omission or concession when presented with a cheque for a huge amount of money, the cause of women is set back. These issues need to be addressed when women are being threatened and abused, not when their lives have improved and they are doing well.
The Liberals had an opportunity to send the world a message in support of women. They chose the opposite. It is a sad state of affairs and not a good way to start these days of action to end violence against women.
The Liberals should be ashamed of themselves.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with humility and resolve on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the first day of the 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. This is a day that demands truth-telling. It reminds us that for an issue as urgent and as widespread as gender-based violence, words alone have never been enough. Safety requires real action. Every level of government carries that responsibility. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for Nature for beginning our day and reminding us of that.
When governments hesitate, when they fail to make violence prevention a priority, lives remain at risk. We see the consequences in our communities. We feel them in our families. We witness them in grief carried by loved ones who should have never had to bury our daughters, sisters, aunties and friends.
Gender-based violence flows through our homes, our bones, our workplaces, public spaces and online spaces. It does not confine itself. It reaches everywhere, which means that our response must reach just as far.
Experts, frontline workers, municipal leaders and even former attorneys general have all said the same thing: Gender-based violence and intimate partner violence amount to an epidemic in Canada. An epidemic demands a whole-of-government response. Nothing less is acceptable.
Ending violence means speaking clearly against the growing forces of far-right misogyny, anti-feminist rhetoric and anti-2SLGBTQQIA+ hate. These ideologies do not exist in isolation. They have long been tied to violent extremism. We remember the women murdered at École Polytechnique in 1989. We honour them by refusing to let hatred take root again. Again, I would like to honour the Secretary of State for Nature for sharing her story.
Today, some elected representatives openly court groups that spread these hateful beliefs. Others have softened or abandoned their commitments to gender-based equality to appease anti-feminist voices. This is a betrayal of every woman and every gender-diverse person who has ever feared for their safety. We must stand against this extremism with absolute clarity and without hesitation.
We cannot confront gender-based violence without naming racism and the ongoing legacy of colonialism and genocide. Indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people face higher rates of violence in this country and are six times more likely than non-indigenous women to experience femicide. The crisis of missing and murdered indigenous women, girls and gender-diverse people is not symbolic. It is not historic. It is a national emergency. In fact, the former prime minister recognized this as an ongoing genocide, yet in this year's budget, the Liberals did not include a single mention of this crisis. We are not invisible.
This omission is even more alarming when the budget centres projects of national interest that involve resource extraction on indigenous lands and territories. We know that man camps and transient workforces increase violence against indigenous women and girls. The status of women committee, in fact, confirmed this in a study during the last Parliament, calling for greater corporate responsibility and meaningful safety planning. Still, the government presented a plan crafted without the participation of indigenous women and without meaningful commitments to community safety. This is unacceptable. This is turning a blind eye to our genocide.
Indigenous women will not sit quietly while governments ignore our right to safety and our right to dignity. We deserve more than symbolic gestures. We deserve life-saving investment, long-term commitment and accountability rooted in justice.
The budget also lacked concrete plans for affordable housing, rent-geared-to-income units and safer shelter places. These are not optional supports. They are essential lifelines for people fleeing violence.
We know that poverty reduction is not separate from safety. It is the foundation of it. People cannot escape violence if they cannot afford to survive. This is why New Democrats continue to push for deeply affordable housing and a guaranteed livable basic income. We know that safety grows from stability; safety grows from dignity.
I offer my deepest gratitude to frontline organizations that continue to meet this crisis with courage and compassion. They hold the line when every other system breaks down. They create refuge where none exists. When the government attempted to gut the women and gender equality department, these organizations advocated and protected this vital funding. Their work quite literally saves lives.
However, we cannot accept half measures. We cannot accept a government that ignores reproductive health, cuts essential supports for refugees or sidesteps the needs of survivors. To fight gender-based violence is to defend human rights in their entirety. Every policy choice strengthens or weakens that defence.
These struggles are not abstract. They are about real people with real stories. I hold deep the love for survivors, for families and for communities, including my own.
Unfortunately, as we begin the 16 days of activism, we are also witnessing a troubling shift on the global stage. On the eve of this campaign, the Prime Minister has chosen to court closer ties with the U.A.E. while diluting Canada's commitments to gender equality. This signals to the world that Canada no longer expects meaningful progress on human rights in exchange for diplomatic favour.
Today, I call on all parliamentary colleagues to join me in a simple but profound commitment. Let us defend the right of every person in this country to live free from violence. Let us defend the right of every person around the world to live free of violence. Let us choose courage over convenience. Let us act.
I believe the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands seeks unanimous consent to speak to this important issue. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for doing me the honour of allowing me to rise today to respond to the speech by our colleague, the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. It is an honour.
This is an emotional topic for everyone here. As the other members have already said, our colleague, the member for Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville, who is also the Secretary of State for Nature, was one of the victims on December 6, 1989. We will never forget the massacre at École Polytechnique.
For years, we have been reading the names of the 14 women who were murdered and the two women who were injured. Everyone knows that our colleague is one of them. The Standing Orders forbid me from saying her name out loud, but it is an honour to work with her in this place. She is a woman of extraordinary courage because, after that disaster, after that massacre, she continued to advocate for gun control with PolyRemembers.
We can always do more to address violence against women. The International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women was created because of the massacre that took place here in Canada. It is hard to believe. I remember it like it was yesterday.
[English]
Despite the École Polytechnique massacre and the heightened awareness of violence against women, it persists. Violence by an intimate partner against a former partner and the killing of her children are things that continue to happen.
As my colleagues have mentioned, of course we recognize that particularly vulnerable are indigenous women and girls.
[Translation]
There was an inquiry into the murders of indigenous women, but the recommendations have not yet been implemented.
[English]
The recommendations, the calls for justice, of the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls inquiry gather dust, and indigenous women and girls continue to go missing and continue to be killed.
Globally, right now, there is an extreme increase in gender-based violence as an act of war in Darfur, Sudan, with connections to Canadian arms manufacturers in Sudan now. Women and girls globally are far more vulnerable to violence because they are women. Femicide occurs far more frequently around the world than we see with our male colleagues, many of whom are feminists. There is no question that to be born female in this world means to be more at risk than to be born male.
Violence against women and girls is a scourge that continues. I celebrate the work of the Moose Hide Campaign and the many men who stand up to say they want to be seen as a man who condemns toxic masculinity.
I am being careful; there is much I could say about our failures domestically, but today is a day of internal reflection. We know we have to do more in our society as a whole. We know we need to raise up and thank the courageous women on the front lines who defend the right of women to live in security.
I will never forget the words of Margaret Atwood on this point. She said that men are afraid that women will laugh at them; women are afraid that men will kill them. That is a deep reality. I know that when I walk alone in a parking lot and hear footsteps behind me in the dark, I am afraid in a way that my husband in similar circumstances would not be.
We in Canada can do more. We need to honour the memory of the young, brilliant women engineering students who had their whole lives ahead of them. Thank God one of our colleagues survived the shootings and is now here as a voice against violence against women and for better gun control. Now sheer happenstance has laid in her path the role of Secretary of State for Nature. I want to thank her, honour her and celebrate her work.
I ask that all of us together live up to the promise that Canada holds for the world as a place that will condemn the Taliban and a state that practises apartheid against women and condemn violence against women wherever it occurs. We must increase our efforts as a country united to end the scourge of violence against anyone, and on this day redouble our efforts to end violence against women.
[Translation]
[English]
Committees of the House
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, entitled “Coercive Control in Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
We know that coercive control is often the precursor to violence against women in Canada. The recommendations in this report, if acted upon, will go a long way to helping eliminate that violence.
Petitions
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of many Canadians who are calling upon the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to call for an end to the persecution of the Falun Gong in China, to take stronger measures to combat the Chinese Communist Party's transnational repression here in Canada and basically to just take stronger actions against the Communist regime.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table e-petition 6675, signed by petitioners primarily from Union Bay, British Columbia.
They highlight that the B.C. Ministry of Environment and Climate Change Strategy conducted a study in Baynes Sound. They found discharges of effluent with toxins, of both acute and chronic concentration, exceeding the provincial water guidelines. The petitioners highlight that copper, lead and zinc all surpassed the chronic levels set out by the guidelines, with copper at 23,950% above, lead at 1,200% above and zinc at 7,320% above chronic levels. A pollution abatement order was issued in January 2024.
The petitioners call on the Department of Environment and Climate Change and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to use their mandate to enforce section 36 of the Fisheries Act in order to help stop the pollution in Baynes Sound from unregulated ship recycling. They call on the government to develop enforceable federal standards to reduce the negative environmental and social impacts of unregulated ship recycling that meet or exceed those set out in the Hong Kong and European Union conventions for the safe recycling of ships.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this morning to present a petition from the constituents of Saanich—Gulf Islands.
[English]
These petitioners want to raise an issue related to how critical it is that Canada pay attention to the educational system and improve the education of our young people around ecological and social economic crises, but particularly to focus on the environmental and sustainability concerns in order that the environmental education of Canada lead to Canadian leadership, in which it is understood that we do not trade off economic growth against a livable future.
The petitioners call on the House of Commons to take a leadership role in enacting a Canadian strategy to support educators, communicators and community leaders. We need to support them.
I am proud to say that my daughter is now a full-time environmental educator in the city of Vancouver, in the K-12 system.
Questions on the Order Paper
Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1
The House resumed from November 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, before I could finish my speech yesterday, I was talking about how the budget would fail to make any investments in treatment and recovery. Instead, the Liberals would continue with their failed policies and funding streams that enable drug use.
The Minister of Health is approving supervised drug consumption sites across the country, including next to day cares, schools and playgrounds. Parents should never have to walk their children past people smoking fentanyl in broad daylight. Children should never find used needles in their playground. Health Canada's own data shows that the most-used substance at these federally approved sites is fentanyl, nearly every second visit. How is this safe?
It is not just Conservatives who are saying this; law enforcement agencies are sounding an alarm too. In a letter sent to the Liberal government earlier this year, the chief of Ottawa Police warned that a federally approved supervised drug site in downtown Ottawa has become a focal point of community safety concerns. He reported an escalation of open drug use, aggressive behaviour and public intoxication in the neighbourhood. Law enforcement officers warned that the impacts have become so serious that nearby child care centres have shut down over safety concerns. When day cares are forced to close because children are not safe, the government should stop repeating what it is doing.
During my visit to B.C., a recovered addict told me, “If you give me the foil and the crack pipe to do drugs, you may as well give me a bullet and the gun to kill myself.” These were his words, not mine. The next day, I visited a vending machine in Kelowna; it dispensed drug paraphernalia such as crack pipes and foil. There were no ID requirements or questions. It was so easy to use that a toddler could figure it out. There are no barriers between the addict and their next hit, because the government has removed them.
This budget could have invested in treatment and recovery. Instead, it continues to pour money into the tools that fuel addiction. Recently obtained information confirms that the government's own emergency treatment fund is being used to purchase smoking kits; in other words, these are taxpayer-funded crack pipes. How can a government claim to support recovery while enabling the very practices that keep people trapped in addiction? When I was in B.C., I met with recovered addicts. They all told me the same thing: They cannot recover while surrounded by drug use; they cannot recover while the government hands out supplies, and they cannot recover when drug consumption is encouraged in their own neighbourhood.
Canadians deserve better. Canadians are sick and tired of Liberal politicians who pretend policies and funding that enable drug use are safe. They are not safe; they are lethal. However, as I stated, there is nothing in the budget to support real recovery and treatment.
I want to return to the other issue that Canadians were hoping to see when they opened the budget: affordability. They wanted financial relief; instead, they got a credit card that would drive up the cost of living. The people of Riding Mountain are some of the hardest-working Canadians we will ever meet. They put in long hours, and they played by the rules; after 10 years of the current government, they were asking for one thing: a government that makes life more affordable. However, instead, Canadians watched the Prime Minister break every fiscal promise he made. The Prime Minister said he would be responsible, but the budget shows he is willing to gamble Canada's future on record levels of borrowing.
I fear not only for Canadians who are struggling but also for the future generations that are already burdened by the financial impact of the budget. I assure members that on this side of the House, Conservatives see a better path forward. We believe Canadians deserve a government that respects taxpayers, restores affordability and brings hope for those who have been affected by addictions through real recovery and treatment. We must work harder so that Canada and the good people who call this nation home can once again be financially strong, proud and free.
Mr. Speaker, the member, I know, has asked questions of Liberals with regard to safe sites. I am sure he is aware that there is a process for acquiring a safe site, which actually includes community involvement. It also includes having letters from the provinces and territories.
Is the member aware of any province, territory or community with a safe site that has actually said no, they do not want a safe site? Is he aware of one in Canada?
Mr. Speaker, did the member not hear what I just said? I had people coming up to me in communities begging for help. Meanwhile, the government, his government, is actually enabling drug addictions. It is not helping people. It is hurting people, harming people, thousands of people. He has done absolutely nothing about it, and the budget would do absolutely nothing to address that problem.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to ask my colleague about the insane policies of the Liberal government, in which it ignores the importance of treatment and plows recklessly toward more drug use in our community while claiming safe supply will cure all.
I would like to hear from the member, why is the government so driven to be against treatment options for addicts?
Mr. Speaker, actually, I cannot understand it. I really do not understand why the government is so hell-bent on fuelling addictions. To see the despair in people's eyes, with people who are trapped in a system that our government is supporting, is absolutely heartbreaking.
We were doing a community walk, and I was watching where addicts would gather at night and create fires. It was right on public walkways where children were going by. It was very heartbreaking. I talked to one person, a woman, and all she wanted was help. It was easier for her to get a crack pipe or a needle than it was to actually get a bandage to cover her wounds. That is how sickening this is.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I understand my colleague's concerns about safety. However, there is an aspect of the government's bill that is also concerning, and that is the hidden expansion, so to speak, of Bill C‑5.
On page 300 of this bill, part 2 is entitled “Exemptions to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth”. These exemptions give the government broad powers, similar to those set out in Bill C‑5.
In my colleague's opinion, is this not the government's way of doing what it did not dare announce publicly, by hiding it in the budget bill, so it could grant itself excessive powers? Does my colleague agree with that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there are many things I do not support in this. One thing I did not foresee in the budget that is really quite troubling is the amount of debt that has been acquired by the government: $78 billion in deficit spending. That would be enough for not only my children, but my grandchildren and probably their children. That is probably the most devastating thing. I have a tough time looking at my kids, thinking I was a part of this. I tried to stop it for them. Meanwhile, they are going to be handcuffed for many generations to come.
That is probably the hardest thing for me to accept about this budget.
Mr. Speaker, I agree very much with my colleague that treatment is the answer for people suffering from substance abuse disorder. I think that, for a long time, the population has realized this is a health issue and not a criminal issue.
If it is a health issue, we need to create the health care architecture so that everybody can get access to just-in-time treatment, because we all know that when someone needs treatment, they need it right now.
Does the hon. member agree with me that we should be making available, through our public health care system, treatment for substance use disorders so that everybody can get access to the treatment they need without having to pay out of pocket, as is now the case?
Mr. Speaker, we definitely need to have solutions toward access. That is what I heard over and over again. That would be access to actual recovery, with recovery beds and some type of formation whereby we can actually get access to true recovery, not enabling people to stay addicted.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, allow me to begin by thanking and congratulating our colleague, the Secretary of State for Nature, for her strength and courage, as well as her statement on violence against women. Too many women are losing their lives here in Canada and around the world, which is why this call to end violence and promote equality is so important and why we are marking the 16 days of activism starting today.
I rise in the House today to call attention to the tangible benefits of the federal budget tabled on November 4, particularly for my riding of Sherbrooke. The government is presenting a budget to build a strong Canada, a budget that capitalizes on significant, strategic investments to support and stimulate key sectors. These major investments will strengthen our economy, create jobs and improve our quality of life in Sherbrooke and across Canada. I had a host of interesting topics to choose from, but I decided to speak specifically on four topics: housing and infrastructure; affordability; defence and security; and artificial intelligence and quantum.
The budget includes billions of dollars for housing, which is a critical issue in my riding, and for infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, water, transportation and hospitals. The government wants to stimulate construction by cutting red tape and empowering industry to be more productive. For Sherbrooke, the budget provides opportunities to build and renovate more affordable housing faster, invest in more efficient public transit, and improve local infrastructure. This will make our city stronger and more resilient. Thanks to this support from the federal government, a number of fantastic projects can now be built. One example that comes to mind is the Coopérative d'habitation des Cantons de l'Est's Quartier du Cap project with 121 affordable housing units.
This budget is channelling significant investments into housing to make housing more accessible for our young families. We are also offering measures that make a real difference in Canadians' lives, such as cutting taxes for 22 million middle-class Canadians and renewing programs like the Canada child benefit, which has lifted 400,000 children in Canada out of poverty, the Canadian dental care plan and the national school food program. The Canadian dental care plan is helping more than 30,000 people in Sherbrooke.
Furthermore, many Canadians do not receive the federal benefits they are entitled to, because they believe they do not owe any tax, because they do not need to file a tax return, or because they do not have access to a tax filing service or simply to the Internet. Introducing automatic federal benefits will enable millions of people in Canada, including thousands of people in Sherbrooke, to receive the support they are entitled to.
The budget allocates more than $82 billion to defence and security. Substantial funding will go toward upgrading and sustaining Canadian Armed Forces capabilities, including training infrastructure. When I was first elected in 2019, I worked to secure a commitment from our government to rehabilitate our two armouries, namely the William Street and Colonel Gaëtan Côté armouries, to give our five reserve units facilities that are tailored to their needs. This major project is perfectly consistent with our whole-of-government approach to building sovereign defence capacity.
Other funding amounts have been earmarked for modernizing our digital cybersecurity infrastructure, communications and technologies. The budget also launches the defence industrial strategy to drive innovation within the Canadian defence industry. For Sherbrooke, these investments represent economic opportunities, well-paying jobs, contracts for our local businesses, and participation in defence supply chains. In addition, strengthening our national security infrastructure contributes to stability and builds local pride.
A number of economic players in Sherbrooke already contribute to this industry, such as Royer, which manufactures boots for the Canadian Armed Forces, and there are many others that look forward to playing a role.
More broadly, in terms of industrial prosperity, to build Canada strong, we must focus on what we can control. For example, we can control who we buy from. That is why we are adopting the new buy Canadian policy. It will apply to all federal agencies and corporations, but with the renewed sense of unity that is sweeping the country, many individuals and businesses have already embraced this approach and started buying local.
The budget also invests $925.6 million over five years in developing a sovereign public AI infrastructure. A portion of this funding will be used to create a sovereign Canadian cloud that would give researchers and businesses access to secure, national resources. The government is going to implement TechStat, or the artificial intelligence and technology measurement program, which will measure the adoption of AI and its impact on the Canadian economy.
At the same time, the government's office of digital transformation will work with industry to identify and support AI projects of national interest.
With the Université de Sherbrooke and our research centres, Sherbrooke is already an innovation hub, and this funding will strengthen our capacity to execute ambitious AI projects. This will help us attract researchers, support the development of start-ups, and build public-private partnerships.
The budget earmarks substantial funding for the quantum ecosystem as part of the defence industrial strategy. For my riding, this means that Sherbrooke will remain a quantum centre of excellence, as it is already home to the Université de Sherbrooke's Quantum Institute, university laboratories, technology start-ups and defence sector partnerships. These investments will create highly specialized jobs and position our region as a strategic player in the technology economy of the 21st century.
With businesses such as Nord Quantique, which is working on developing an error-correcting quantum computer, Sherbrooke is a major player in global innovation. When it comes to quantum, all roads lead to Sherbrooke. Our complete ecosystem, with its technologically advanced infrastructure, is where innovative companies come together to collaborate. It is the envy of the world.
In summary, the November 4 federal budget will create exciting opportunities for Sherbrooke. These include more affordable housing and modernized infrastructure, as well as shorter permit processing times to encourage affordable housing projects. It also includes $1 billion to provide transitional housing for people experiencing homelessness. Jobs will be created through our investments, particularly in defence, and many businesses in the region will be able to participate in terms of products and supply chains. The budget includes a boost for artificial intelligence and quantum, strengthening our local innovation ecosystem. Finally, it will lead to sustainable prosperity rooted in cutting-edge technologies and a resilient economy.
In Sherbrooke, we have good reason to be optimistic. These investments are more than just a promise. They are laying the foundation for a brighter, more innovative and more prosperous future.
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague whose riding is in the Eastern Townships. I also had the opportunity to visit the Université de Sherbrooke's Quantum Institute this summer, and it is true that it is impressive.
That said, here is my question. When it comes to the media, the budget made announcements about Radio-Canada, but the people at Cogeco, 107.7 FM and TVA in Sherbrooke are extremely concerned about the future. They are very disappointed to see that the government did not understand how important it is to have a diversity of voices and media pluralism.
Given the current media situation and the loss of advertising revenue, does my colleague not think that the government should have helped not only Radio-Canada but other media outlets as well?
I do not want her to talk to me about the local journalism initiative. Yes, it helps local media, but that is not what is going to help community and private media outlets.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the quality of the work done at the Université de Sherbrooke's Quantum Institute.
I fully support our local media. I believe in the importance of local journalism. I had the opportunity to speak to Jasmin, a TVA reporter in my riding, and obviously, I understand the repercussions of this decision, particularly just a few weeks before Christmas.
However, the budget sets out major, historic investments to support various cultural and media sectors. Yes, we announced a $1-million investment earlier to support local journalism, We need to do more and we will be there to help this industry.
Mr. Speaker, my riding is home to many seniors, and I did not see many measures in the budget to help seniors cope with the cost of living. Could the member comment on that?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, and I congratulate her for asking it in French.
In fact, 7.5 million seniors receive Canada's old age security pension. We have increased funding for the New Horizons for Seniors program, which supports projects that promote social participation among seniors and help them remain active in their communities. The tax cut for 22 million middle-class Canadians will also benefit seniors.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to sit as a seat mate with my colleague and good friend. I see her as a very strong advocate on the whole arts file and on the French language.
I know that within the budget there are commitments that are going to help a lot of people in Quebec. I am thinking of the Montreal port, for example, and of the aerospace industry through the military expenditures we are making. There is a lot of support in all the different regions, but if we were to focus on the province of Quebec, I think we would see that there is a lot to be very proud of in supporting the budget.
I wonder if my colleague could provide her thoughts in regard to why it is such an important budget to pass, for all Canadians but in particular for the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer my hon. colleague's question.
This budget contains several significant and essential investments for Quebec. With its 44 members from Quebec, the Liberal caucus proudly defends the interests of Quebeckers. These investments will enable large-scale projects to take shape. To strengthen Canada's economy, we must help Canadian businesses become more productive and competitive, and that is exactly what we are doing with the measures that we are proposing in the budget.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-15, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 1.
Bill C-15 is a massive omnibus bill. It is over 600 pages long and packed with legislative changes that touch nearly every corner of government, from departments and agencies to Crown corporations. Ironically, when they were in opposition, the Liberals strenuously condemned Stephen Harper for using omnibus bills to “prevent Parliament from properly reviewing and debating his proposals.” They called it an “undemocratic practice” and pledged to end it. However, here we are, ironically faced with a bill that does exactly what the Liberals once condemned. Now Parliament is expected to rush a bill through that would make fundamental changes to law and policy without the scrutiny Canadians expect and deserve.
Budget implementation legislation should be about accountability. It should give Parliament the opportunity to examine the government's economic commitments in detail. Instead, this bill forces us to vote on a grab bag of measures, some positive and some deeply concerning, all bundled into a single package. This is not transparency. It does not display respect for Parliament or for the Canadians who sent us here.
Canadians are struggling. Unemployment has climbed to its highest level in a decade, leaving young people desperate for work. Half of Canadians are living paycheque to paycheque. The cost of essentials, from groceries to rent, continues to rise. Our economy is teetering on the edge of recession, while U.S. President Donald Trump threatens further damage. The Liberals promised Canadians, both during the last election campaign and over the last several months, that they would respond to these serious and entrenched problems. In fact, they promised transformational, generational change, yet in the face of these challenges, this budget has been roundly determined from all quarters to be anything but that. Instead, the Liberals have missed the opportunity to positively adjust the Canadian economy, deeply invest in long-ignored Canadian infrastructure and strengthen the institutions that Canadians rely on and that define us as a nation.
At its core, the government is not offering creative solutions. Instead, it is demanding sacrifices from workers while handing out billions to the wealthiest individuals and the most profitable corporations. It is neglecting to build our public health care system, a cornerstone of Canadian identity and a key economic advantage for Canadian employers. It is failing to tackle the housing crisis or ease the crushing cost of living with the immediacy and depth these crises call for. It is massively ramping up military spending to 5% of GDP over time, a greater portion than even the United States spends to maintain its global military empire. In the midst of a jobs crisis, it is slashing services and eliminating tens of thousands of family-sustaining jobs. Many of these represent a profound betrayal of the promises Liberals made to the Canadian people just months ago, an about-face to the progressive folks who placed their faith in the government at election time and a surprising embracing of Conservative policies.
Let us examine a few examples. During the last election, the Liberals promised to cap, not cut, public service employment, yet budget 2025 takes a hatchet to the public services by eliminating 40,000 jobs. The Prime Minister led Canadians to believe, and in fact did so in writing, that he understood both the urgency and opportunities of dealing with the climate crisis, yet he cancelled EV metrics, abandoned emissions targets and is poised to approve fossil fuel pipelines and reverse half a century of tanker bans, jeopardizing sensitive B.C. coastal waters. He led Canadians to believe he would protect health care, yet his budget has no money to honour Liberal pharmacare commitments or ensure that health transfers keep up with health care inflation.
Let us be clear about what this means for people's lives. When we slash tens of thousands of positions, frontline services suffer. Do Canadians want to wait months to renew their passports? Do they want to speak to someone about their taxes or be put on hold with a computerized menu? Do they want delays in receiving their old-age security cheques?
According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Liberals are withholding information on $60 billion in cuts announced in budget 2025. Instead of specifics, Canadians are being given empty buzzwords like “streamlining”, “modernizing” and “recalibrating”, along with vague assurances that artificial intelligence will somehow fill this gap. After the Conservatives' Phoenix pay system disaster, Canadians have every reason to be skeptical of grandiose promises based on unproven technology. These broken promises and hidden details matter because they reveal the true priorities behind this legislation. While Canadians face true, real hardship, the government is making choices that deepen inequality and weaken the services people rely on.
There are provisions in this act that New Democrats support because, in the main, they reflect priorities we have long fought for and have been instrumental in advancing. These include a tax credit for personal support workers, high-speed rail between Quebec and Ontario, a permanent national school food program, a waste biomass tax credit to help our ailing forestry sector and improved information sharing to address worker misclassification and fraud.
Unfortunately, these are overshadowed by Liberal choices that take our country backwards. For example, this legislation removes the luxury tax on yachts and private jets, a blatant gift to the wealthy at a time when working families are struggling just to make ends meet. It repeals the digital services tax before it even got into play, a measure that would have ensured the biggest U.S. tech giants and billionaires on the planet, like Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, pay their fair share. Instead, the Liberals are scrapping it at the behest of Donald Trump, which is just the latest in a long line of one-sided concessions to the U.S. that have delivered precisely nothing for Canada.
Let us remember that, during the last election, the Liberals promised to keep their elbows up, stand firm and fight for Canadians. Now, when it matters most, they have dropped their elbows and caved to pressure from Washington. New Democrats do not want a budget that delivers for Donald Trump. We want a budget that delivers for Canadians. This bill eliminates the underused housing tax, which helped fight speculation from foreign investors and freed up homes for Canadian families. It is a blatant gift to the property development industry, and it weakens environmental protections in the Competition Act.
There is so much more that could have been and should be done, in our view. Now is the time to invest heavily in our country, our companies, our people and our infrastructure. Now is the time to help the millions of working and marginalized Canadians, from improving their health care and creating good, family-sustaining jobs to building creative supports like disability benefits that folks can actually live on. Budgets are about choices, and choices reveal values. Budget 2025 reveals that the Liberals value yachts over youth employment, private jets over public pharmacare, tax breaks for tech giants over relief for families, and military expansion over health care for Canadians.
New Democrats believe in a better path. We seek a future where every family has an affordable place to call home; where our men and women in uniform have the tools they need, but so do our doctors, nurses and teachers; where climate action meets the urgency of the moment; and where fair taxation ensures that those at the top contribute their fair share and that we have the revenue to properly fund the government and the services it provides. It is a future where families can access quality child care; where seniors can retire with dignity; where everyone who wants a job can find one, with fair pay and decent conditions; where communities have reliable public transit, clean water and healthy food; where indigenous peoples have justice, respect and real reconciliation; and where universal pharmacare, dental care and mental health services are there for Canadians when they need them. This is how we build a country where everyone can thrive, not just the privileged few.
Canadians sent us here to tackle the pressing challenges they face and improve their lives. Instead, this budget locks in choices that burden families and further enrich the wealthy. New Democrats will oppose the measures in this legislation, because this budget is about the country we want to build. Liberals have shown their priorities. New Democrats will show ours by putting working people first.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague across the aisle.
I would like to know whether he supports the measures in the 2025 budget to combat the economic abuse of seniors and others.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, that question really asks whether this budget addresses the very serious issues facing seniors in this country.
I would like to focus on pharmacare because we believe that every person in this country should be able to get the medication they need when they need it. Who are the heaviest users of pharmaceuticals in this country? It is seniors. I am shocked this budget does not allocate a single dollar for the government to honour its commitment in law from the last Parliament to sign agreements with every province and territory so that every senior in this country can get the pharmaceutical medication they need with their health card, not their credit card.
The Liberals have failed to keep that promise.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and heard him talk about a number of things that he likes in the budget. I could not help but think that this is what a budget is supposed to be about. People will never get a budget they like completely. He did list off a number of things that he likes. He talked about high-speed rail. He talked about the national school food program. He talked about ensuring that pharmacare is not touched, to the degree it has already been implemented, yet he and his party either voted against the budget or abstained from voting.
Does the member not see a benefit in the stuff he does like? Is he willing to vote against it, despite the fact that he does like that stuff?
Mr. Speaker, it is true that all budgets have things in them that are worthy of support and other things that we do not like. In a 600-page document, this is going to be the case.
This gives me a chance to underscore a practice that has developed in Parliament: implementing omnibus bills, wherein all sorts of things that have nothing to do with a budget are tossed into the budget. Again, that is something the Liberals disliked in opposition, and they are doing it in government.
There are things in this budget New Democrats will support. That is a fair comment to make, but we have to examine a budget as a whole. When one takes a broad look at this budget, there is such lost opportunity. With the Trump administration upending Canada-U.S. relations, now is the time to be investing in our country, building more here, becoming more self-sufficient, getting more value from our raw resources and diversifying our trade relationships.
While the government is taking some steps in that regard, we lost a real opportunity in this budget to reset our Canadian economy in a way that puts us first and that would raise the living standard of every single Canadian. Instead—
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that concern me about this budget is the sheer amount of additional debt it is going to put on Canadians and future generations.
The comment I have for my colleague is this: Right now, Canadian taxpayers are paying approximately $55 billion in interest on the current national debt. Now there is an additional $80 billion being added to that. More money goes, on an annual basis, to pay the interest than it does to health care for our provinces and territories.
Could the member comment on the challenge we have when we are paying more in interest than we are sending to support health care for our provinces and territories?
Mr. Speaker, New Democrats have the best record for balancing budgets per year of government of any party in the House, from 1867 to today. We agree that crushing levels of debt and massive deficits are not healthy. That is why I call this budget a Conservative budget.
The Liberals cut revenue and have responded by cutting taxes. They cut the capital gains inclusion measure. They cut the digital services tax. They refuse to make our income tax system more progressive. Then, when there is a revenue problem, they respond by cutting services that Canadians rely upon. That is a classic small-c conservative approach to government.
The NDP believes we should be raising taxes progressively so we can have a robustly funded government, so Canadians can get the services they need and so we can have the ability to pay for them without going into a massive deficit.
Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 is about building a stronger, more resilient Canada with an economy by Canadians and for Canadians.
As we look at the world around us, it is clear that we are at a hinge moment. Global uncertainty is rising, supply chains are shifting, technology is accelerating and countries everywhere are choosing whether to retreat or to step forward. Canada chooses to step forward. Budget 2025 would strengthen our sovereignty, accelerate interprovincial trade and position Canada to become its own best customer, making our supply chains, our industries and our workforce more resilient and more competitive.
Today, I want to speak directly to issues that my constituents in Port Moody, Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra care about. This budget is much more than numbers on a page; it is homes, jobs, affordability and opportunity right here in my community.
The first thing is housing. The housing crisis is hitting families hard in the Tri-Cities. In Coquitlam, young families are struggling to find homes they can afford. In Port Moody, seniors want to downsize without leaving the community they love. In Anmore and Belcarra, residents want to protect their communities' unique character while ensuring options for future generations.
Budget 2025 sets out six major housing actions to increase affordability and supply. Key investments include $25 billion over five years to double housing construction using Canadian materials. Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency, will partner with industry and municipalities to build faster and with greater certainty, and meaningful projects are already under way. For example, in Coquitlam, the Hoy Creek Housing Co-op expansion will deliver 146 new affordable homes, including 33 fully accessible units. This means real progress for real people.
The second thing is infrastructure. Our region is growing, and our roads, bridges, water systems and community spaces need to keep pace. Budget 2025 introduces build communities strong, which is a fund with $51 billion in investment over 10 years that would revitalize local infrastructure and support the essential services that Canadians rely on. This includes nearly $28 billion for local roads, bridges, water systems and community centres, and about $17 billion for housing, health care and education infrastructure through provincial and territorial channels. These investments would help cities across B.C., including Port Moody and Coquitlam, plan and deliver the infrastructure that supports the quality of life for our residents.
The third thing is affordability and fairness. Families in my riding are feeling the squeeze from everyday costs. Budget 2025 would deliver a full suite of measures to directly lower monthly costs for Canadians. Some supports are universal. We would lower cellphone and Internet bills, and we would ban transfer fees and bring real transparency into banking so that people know what they are paying for. By expanding dental care to Canadians with household incomes under $90,000, we would make sure that adults, children and seniors can finally access much-needed dental care.
Other measures are targeted and designed to help families with children. For us in the Tri-Cities, this really matters. Teachers and families across School District No. 43 rely on the school food program every single day, and it is making a real difference. Our government would make that program permanent. That stability would mean that children can focus on learning and not much else.
We are also strengthening child care, because affordable, reliable care is what allows parents to build stability, return to work and build a future for their families. We remain committed to creating even more $10-a-day child care spaces, helping parents get back into the workforce and helping employers across the Tri-Cities fill critical labour shortages.
Together, these universal and family-focused measures form part of a comprehensive affordability package that would support young families, seniors on fixed incomes and individuals and businesses right across my riding.
The fourth thing is jobs and skills. Our riding is full of talent, from students attending nearby Douglas College or SFU to skilled tradespeople building our communities. Budget 2025 would invest in people with a re-skilling package for 50,000 workers, especially in construction, clean tech and digital skills. The youth employment and skills strategy opens direct pathways to higher-paying careers, and the new youth climate corps would offer paid training for young people who want to develop green skills and contribute to our climate resilience.
This leads me directly to climate leadership, which is the fifth thing. Folks in Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra care deeply about environmental sustainability. Budget 2025's climate competitiveness strategy is both a climate plan and an economic plan for B.C. It would mobilize capital for clean energy projects and accelerate critical mineral development, which is essential for EV batteries, renewable technology and Canada's long-term economic competitiveness.
The sixth thing is seniors. Seniors are the backbone of my riding. Budget 2025 would strengthen the new horizons for seniors program, funding local projects that reduce isolation and promote active living. It would also launch Canada's first national anti-fraud strategy to protect seniors from scams and financial abuse, which are a growing concern today.
Budget 2025 is a plan to build Canada strong, and that starts in communities like mine, with more homes, better infrastructure, lower costs for families, good jobs for youth and workers, a cleaner, more competitive economy and support for seniors.
We can give ourselves more than any foreign government can take from us. We will be our own best customer. When we build in Canada, buy in Canada and believe in Canada, we can build an economy that works for everyone across our communities and our nation. When we build Canada strong, we build Port Moody—Coquitlam strong.
I hope we can count on the members opposite for their support.
Mr. Speaker, it is pretty safe to say the hon. member cannot count on my support for this budget.
Right now in Canada, the debt is more than the budget, so the amount of debt we owe is more than the entire budget of the federal government. Every dollar spent is a dollar borrowed from Canadians and future Canadians.
According to Fitch Ratings, right after the budget was announced, “Canada's...proposed budget, announced in Parliament on Nov. 4, underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances”. It continued, “persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.”
This has happened before, with crushing impacts on the social programs Canadians care about and benefit from. In the 1990s, after similar ratings pressure, the Liberal government of the day was forced to cut 32% from the federal health and social transfers over just two years.
Is the member not concerned about the same thing happening today?
Mr. Speaker, Canada currently has the highest credit rating, which is the AAA rating, and the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio in the world.
I have incredible hope. There is something to be said about the speed of trust. Our Prime Minister is meeting with leaders from other countries right now. There is so much respect for our Prime Minister that, on that speed of trust, he is respected on the world stage. They know he is no stranger to balancing budgets and can lead Canada into a strong economic future.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's glowing speech on the budget, and I understand why it was so glowing, because she is in government, but she should also be somewhat concerned. As a member from British Columbia, she will see her Prime Minister announce a pipeline from Alberta on Thursday without the consent of Premier Eby, and even in the face of a lot of harsh criticism. What we see in the budget right now is the government allowing itself to waive all environmental assessments for projects similar to those in Bill C-5, deemed projects of national interest.
My colleague may not know this, but she may very well be getting a pipeline shoved down her throat.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, so far, B.C. has been the recipient of several projects from the nation-building projects office. I am very excited about the future. Those projects will bring thousands of jobs to the coast.
I cannot speak to the member's question directly because the project is not yet on the table. I have not seen an agreement, so I will leave it at that.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on becoming the co-chair of the Canada-China Legislative Association. I know she will do good work alongside Senator Gignac in that role.
It is interesting because we see Conservative members in the House sometimes suggesting that we need to engage with China to remove tariffs on canola, but at the same time, we see other Conservative members suggesting that any engagement with China is a bad thing. It is interesting to see the Conservatives not able to pick a lane on that. Maybe the member would like to opine on that.
On the debt question, it is important to recognize that we have a AAA credit rating. Both S&P and Moody’s have continued to maintain it. We have a stable debt-to-GDP ratio over time. To put it into perspective, we are spending less than 10¢ of every dollar on debt management. Under the Conservative government in the 1990s, it was 35¢. It is important to take that into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. We are coming into a very exciting time, when conversations and diplomacy, through our Prime Minister and our ministers, are happening across the globe. That gives me a lot of hope. Those relationships are precious and fragile.
I look forward to further conversations with Senator Gignac on how we can move the needle forward in those sensitive conversations.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is an amazing place that builds incredible things. This is something that I have learned over the last six months I have been the shadow minister for industry and technology in Canada.
I have seen, first-hand, Winnipeggers building part of the F-35 fighter jet, the world's best, most powerful fighter jet, right here in Winnipeg. It is incredible what Winnipeggers are building. Then here in Ottawa, I have seen Mission Control, a company that is building a lunar rover. We have people in Ottawa who are building something that is going to traverse the lunar landscape and send information back to Canada.
It is incredible what Canadians are building today, what they have built in history and what they will surely build into the future. I feel very hopeful about the future, especially when we consider how many natural resources this country has, and how hard-working and how educated our people are. There is so much to be hopeful for.
Unfortunately, we are in very turbulent waters, without land in sight. Every single month we have over two million people, in a country as prosperous as Canada, going to food banks because they cannot afford to feed themselves. I have done work locally in Winnipeg, reaching out to the food banks there, and it is shocking what they are seeing. For the first time in their long histories, they are seeing full-time dual-income households having to go to food banks because they cannot afford to feed their families. These are two-parent, two-income households. That has never happened to two-income households to this degree in Canada.
We are seeing that half of my generation, the millennials, will never be able to afford a home, despite Canada being the second-largest landmass on earth, with really everything we could possibly need to build houses. We are working harder than ever, yet we will not be able to afford homes. It is quite shocking that this is happening in Canada despite all that we have, all that we are creating and everything at our disposal.
Why is this happening? Why does it feel like working people are spinning their tires? Well, there are a lot of reasons for that, but one of them is the economist-friendly word “productivity”. We are having a productivity crisis in this country. When I engage with people in my community, often their eyes will glaze over about productivity. I totally get it. We have heard, and I have heard, from business leaders, economists and the Bank of Canada that productivity is one of the number one issues when it comes to the standard of living in Canada, and it is in a crisis.
In fact, Tiff Macklem, the governor of the Bank of Canada, said last month what is most concerning is that, “unless we change some other things, our standard of living as a country, Canadians, is going to be lower than it otherwise would have been”. When he was talking at the press conference, giving this update about the Canadian economy, he said the standard of living was going to be up, but now it is going to be lower.
We are going to be poorer, and this is out of the mouth of the Bank of Canada governor. He is telling Canadians and parliamentarians that we should all be very concerned about this, and that we are going to be poorer as a country if we keep going down this trajectory.
Of course, there are world factors in that, such as the trade war, but many of these issues existed long before Trump 2.0 ever came along. We saw this a year and a half ago, in March 2024, when the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, said about productivity that it is an emergency, and “it's time to break the glass.” It is time to sound the fire alarm. It is time to evacuate because the productivity is so bad.
How does this relate to everyday people? What most people think when we say that we have a productivity problem is, “What, do I have to work harder?” That is not what it means.
Nicolas Vincent, external deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, said, “Canada’s affordability problem is really a productivity problem. [If we want] to make things more affordable, we need to raise our income. And the way to grow our income is by increasing productivity.”
It is mission critical that we fix this productivity problem, and the results are very stark. In fact, after 10 years of Liberal government and the way that they have approached the economy, we have had very poor results when it comes to productivity. In fact, it has barely grown at all since the Liberals have been in power. We often compete with the U.S. Obviously, they are our biggest buyer for our trade, but they are also our biggest competitor when it comes to businesses selecting where they are going to build factories, hire more workers and where they are going to innovate.
The U.S. is our biggest competitor. Our productivity is 30% lower than that of the U.S., and in real U.S. manufacturing, the construction investment has been up over 300% since 2008. Canada's has been flat since that time. We are competing against a country that is investing 300% more in real manufacturing than we are. U.S. firms invest triple what Canadian firms do. A Canadian firm is investing about $4,100 per worker annually in our workforce, and the U.S. is investing over $12,800 per worker annually.
For people to understand, let us say someone works in an office and everyone works on their computers. It is as if the person beside them is working on modern computer technology, with AI, virtual calling and a smartphone. They have all of those things. This person can be just as smart as them and work just as hard as they do, but they are trying to do the same job with dial-up Internet on a 1990s computer. That is the reality when we talk about investing in our workforce and what we are up against with the behemoth that is the U.S.
We used to be more on par with investments per worker. Our productivity used to be a lot closer, but now the U.S. is leaps and bounds ahead of us, especially after the last 10 years. It is so bad that, if we were to just catch up to where the Americans are in productivity, our individual per capita GDP, or per capita output into the economy, would be $20,000 higher per worker in Canada. That is how much it would generate economic growth and productivity. As we have heard from the Bank of Canada, when we increase our productivity, we increase our incomes and the standard of living for Canadians.
Why is our productivity suffering so much? It is not from a lack of effort, innovation, enterprise or education. One of the main causes is the regulatory burden. Companies spend at least $51 billion a year meeting regulatory requirements, according to the CEO of Food, Health & Consumer Products of Canada. He said that at industry committee, where we are currently studying productivity.
The Business Council of Canada said, “Businesses across every sector, from natural resources to housing to finance, rank regulation as the single biggest barrier to new investment in Canada.” Regulation is a big factor of why we are not producing as efficiently as other countries, predominantly the United States, which is our largest competitor.
Again, why is this? We have seen the results over the last 10 years. As I have said, under Liberal governance, the country's productivity has been relatively flat. If we think of Canada as one worker, we would think that, over time, we work hard and hope our wages would go up. That is mostly the career trajectory of the average working Canadian. It is as if Canada, as a worker, has somehow not had a raise, improved their productivity, gained more experience or created more value since 2014. This country has not, in essence, had a raise since 2014, despite all of the inflation. That is one way to understand the magnitude of what we are facing under 10 years of really poor economic performance led by government policies at the federal level.
We see things like, infamously, the Liberals' Bill C-69, which I think really shows what the government is about. The Liberals have made it incredibly hard to build large projects. They have denied this for a long time. We have been banging this Bill C-69 drum, but it was really proven in large measure by the new Liberal leader, the new Prime Minister of Canada, governing the same bunch of Liberals who have been voting on these policies for over a decade. He made a new level of bureaucracy to go on top of the disaster of a mountain of bureaucracy they have created, which has made it very difficult to be successful in this country as a large creator of manufacturing or resource development, and the Liberals are going to pick what special companies get to go ahead and skip all the regulatory burdens they have created, which all the other companies are going to have to go over. That is just one example.
The Liberals also have the industrial carbon tax, which increases the price of energy on Canada's largest manufacturers. It is more expensive to make steel here because of things like the industrial carbon tax.
Again, our taxes need to be competitive. Our regulatory environment needs to be such that, when a business, such as an auto sector business, is saying that it could expand in Canada or in the U.S., it is going to go where the best bottom line for it is. Therefore, it is going to look at where to get the fastest permits, there are the fewest regulatory hurdles and it can make the most profit so it can hire more people and invest in more technology to be more efficient and have more output.
Time and time again, long before Trump 2.0 came along, businesses were upping and leaving for the U.S., or rather than expanding here, they were expanding down there. Now that Trump 2.0 has come along, it has exacerbated all of the mess the Liberals created over the last decade, which is impacting the cost of living.
Looking at this, we saw in the last election that the Prime Minister, the Liberal leader, said that he was going to be the one to change this and that he was going to bring forward a transformational budget. We have seen that that is not really the case.
The Liberals have made a few tweaks around the margins. Finally, after a decade, they said that productivity is a problem and they want to work on the economy. Thank God, but they have only made a few tweaks around the margins.
The only party that is going to make the transformation to the regulatory and taxation burden we have in this country so Canada can have a better standard of living is the one that has been saying the same thing about this for 10 years, and that is a Conservative majority government. That is what we need to transform the economy and increase the standard of living and the opportunities for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, if we were to compare the two previous administrations, Justin Trudeau to Stephen Harper, based on what the member was saying, Justin Trudeau created double the number of jobs Stephen Harper did, and in a shorter period of time of governance. We are talking about 1 million jobs versus 2 million jobs.
Since we have had the new government, we have had a Prime Minister who has negotiated with the provinces and indigenous leaders to build a one Canada economy. At the same time, he is ensuring that we get the best deal for Canada and Canadians with respect to the Americans' deal. We also have a Prime Minister who is travelling the world, increasing exports, getting hundreds of millions of dollars in commitments coming into Canada, whether they are from Korea, Philippines, India, the United Arab Emirates or England. We have legislation on England.
I am wondering if she—
Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the member for Winnipeg North got up to engage me in debate because no one in the House has stood up to say more words defending the Liberal record than that member has over the last decade.
No one has defended the Liberals' productivity decline in this country, as well as the policies that have impoverished Canadians and that have sent businesses south, more than that member. I will certainly not take any lessons from him about economics since he, more than anybody else, has stood here for a decade defending their record, which we have had to listen to. Their record is two million people going to food banks and thousands of manufacturing jobs going south.
Mr. Speaker, I definitely appreciate what my colleague has brought to the floor today.
Yesterday, we were fighting in this place for Canadians' jobs. The member is talking about productivity, and members on the other side of the floor say, “We are investing in them in the meantime.” In other words, the Liberals are giving people handouts. We heard over and over again that Canadians do not want handouts. They want their jobs. They do not want the government feeding their children. They want to be able to feed their children themselves. How does that fit into this situation?
Mr. Speaker, the member is hitting on something really important about how the Conservatives would be approaching this situation versus the Liberals.
The Liberals look at the economy like it is a big switchboard that they get to control, and if they just turn this knob, pick this industry and dump billions of taxpayer dollars here, or maybe here, but not over there, they will create a prosperous environment. As I outlined, and as many economists have outlined, the Liberals' approach to the economy does not work. We have just seen more of the same in the Liberal lip service toward productivity and a few tweaks around the margins for the business sector.
What we would be doing as Conservatives would be to look at how we would create the most business-friendly environment in the world, have companies choose Canada to create all their goods and services and make it so that companies can expand their manufacturing businesses here so that it is more competitive and more efficient to do so than in the U.S. That would be our number one focus during this trade war. Unfortunately, we are not seeing that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech and I would like to know where she stands. Budget 2025 allocates $660 million to provide housing and shelters for women and to help combat gender-based violence.
I would like to know where my colleague stands on this issue, which we must address at all levels.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that, after 10 years of Liberals and their soft-on-crime policies, we have seen incredible rates of increase with respect to sexual assault and sexual assaults on children in this country. For a lot of that, again, we have to look at the Criminal Code and how the government views the Criminal Code. The Liberals repeatedly, time and time again, go soft on the people who are violating and abusing women.
When a woman is abused, she has to somehow get the courage and the safety to go to a judge to ask for a peace bond. I put forward a bill so that peace bonds would last at least two years, so woman would not have to go through it 12 months later. A woman often has kids, has a life and is fighting for her safety. The Liberals voted that down at the status of women committee, so I need no lecture from the government on fighting for women and the safety of women. We are the only party that would lock up the perpetrators. Time and time again, we have put that forward, but the legislation has been voted down by the Liberals.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-15 at second reading. I want to talk about it in language that is easy to understand, because this bill has a direct impact on the lives of families, workers, seniors and businesses back home in Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I want everyone to be able to understand what this bill means for our community, without needing a financial or policy expert to explain it to them.
Over the past few months, I have been meeting with people in my riding. They talk to me about their plans, their needs and their desire to see things continue to move in the right direction. Of course, some of them talk to me about their challenges, such as the cost of living or the difficulty they are having finding housing, but they do so with an open mind and a genuine desire for improvement. The main takeaway from these discussions is that people in my riding, from Boisbriand, Saint‑Eustache, Deux‑Montagnes and Rosemère, want useful, practical measures that give them direct support in their daily lives, and that is exactly what Bill C‑15 seeks to do.
Bill C‑15 has concrete answers to these concerns. It is not a theoretical bill. It contains measures that will help people on a day-to-day basis. For example, one of the measures will make the Canada disability benefit tax free. This represents a more stable income and financial relief for persons living with disabilities and their families, and most importantly, a form of respect. We are telling these people that we care about them and we are going to help them.
The bill also provides a tax credit for support workers, the individuals who take care of our parents, our loved ones, and our seniors every day. They are often the first people to clock in in the morning and the last to clock out in the evening. They stay by the side of the people they take care of, provide them with comfort, listen to them, and encourage them. Their work demands immense patience, deep compassion and exceptional inner strength. Too often, these essential workers operate in silence, and they do not always receive the recognition they deserve. With this tax credit, we want to tell them clearly that we know that their work is indispensable, that we know that they have a lot of weight on their shoulders, and that we want to be there to support them. This measure does not erase all the challenges in this sector, but it is a concrete gesture of respect, gratitude, and support for the people that take care of our seniors with compassion and dignity.
Another important measure will give people faster access to their money when they deposit cheques in a banking institution. This might seem like a simple matter, but when someone works hard and is waiting for every dollar to pay rent or buy groceries, having access to money without unnecessary delay can make a big difference. This is a gesture of respect for Canadians. The bill also protects people from fraud, particularly seniors who are often a target. Banks will be required to implement new protection measures. This means that our seniors will be less likely to lose their savings to fraudsters. For many families in our communities, this takes one more concern off their shoulders.
Bill C‑15 also helps our local businesses, big or small. In Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, we have businesses that are innovating, manufacturing, and creating jobs. The bill will make it easier to invest in new machinery and modern technology. When a business is able to modernize its tools, it becomes more productive and faster and can employ more people. This is good for workers, the local economy, and the future of our Lower Laurentians region. The bill will also enhance the research support program. This means that businesses that innovate, create, and develop new ideas will receive additional support. This support is critical to ensuring our businesses remain competitive in today's fast-paced and ever-changing environment.
Housing is another key focus of the bill. Many young people in Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles would like to buy or rent a home, but they cannot afford to. This bill offers a number of solutions. It seeks to accelerate rental housing construction. It simplifies certain measures that were causing problems for property owners. It enables the government to invest more in affordable housing. This is all to help more people access decent housing faster.
There are also projects for the future, like the high-speed rail line between Quebec City and Toronto. With this bill, the high-speed rail project can make some real progress. One day, our young people, our workers and our families will be able to travel much more quickly and easily, using a clean, modern, lower-emitting mode of transportation.
This will make travel simpler, reduce time spent in transit, and open up new opportunities for work, study and tourism. This project is significant for the entire country, including Quebec. It is rumoured that there could be a stop in Laval, right next door to Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. This is very exciting. There will also be benefits here at home. This project will create more economic opportunities and it will close the distance between our communities and the larger centres.
The bill also helps workers get training and find better careers. It supports vulnerable people, protects consumers, helps indigenous communities, and strengthens investments in clean energy. These are concrete measures that all support the same objective: building Canada strong. On this side of the House, we believe in a strong Canada where people have more opportunities and more security.
I firmly believe that this bill will improve the lives of the people of Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. It brings hope, it responds to real needs, it supports families, it protects our seniors, it helps our businesses, it encourages homebuilding, and it lays the foundation for the future of our young people. For all these reasons, I am proud to support Bill C-15 and I invite all my colleagues to do the same.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked a little bit about how to incentivize things like business and research. I wonder if she could elaborate more on how the government is going to keep Canada's leadership position in science and create a competitive climate for investors.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of serving as a member of the Standing Committee on International Trade. Our country has free trade agreements with Europe, Asia, the United States and Mexico. We are working hard to ensure that we create as much opportunity as possible for our businesses as we try to diversify our markets as much as possible and make Canada as successful as possible.
We all know that Canada has a AAA credit rating, the highest in the world. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7. We have an opportunity to invest in our communities, to grow our businesses, and to believe in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is all well and good for the Liberals to brag about Canada's credit rating, but they also need to listen to what the experts are saying. Last week, the Parliamentary Budget Officer indicated that too many of the expenditures in the budget are being labelled or categorized as investments. My colleague from Mirabel has repeatedly spoken out about this creative accounting on the part of the government.
Is my colleague not concerned about this? The Liberals are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with this budget.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is talking to me about Mirabel, a city north of my riding. We are going to be making serious investments in defence. We have no choice; we have to take care of our defence.
Mirabel is home to L3Harris Mas, which maintains the F‑35s. It is also home to Airbus, Safran and Textron, which manufactures helicopters. My riding is home to Novabus, and Paccar is next door. All of these businesses will benefit from the investments that we are making, and if the businesses benefit, then so will the workers in the Lower Laurentians.
I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois did not support this budget. I encourage them to change their position.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague represents a riding that is home to many farmers. This budget includes a number of very important measures for farmers, such as an additional $75-million investment in the AgriMarketing program. We are also making changes to the risk management programs that support our farmers and emphasizing the importance of exporting our products around the world.
The Conservative election platform did not include any measures for farmers. Can my colleague talk about the importance of our agricultural sector? Can she talk about the measures in the budget and compare them to what the Conservatives have done in the past?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about agriculture.
I used to be a grocer; my father and I owned supermarkets. We bought our products locally, in my corner of the country, from places like Mirabel, Saint-Joseph-du-Lac and Saint-Eustache.
Yes, we need to support agriculture. We are going to build infrastructure and encourage farmers.
The process of transferring agricultural businesses is also very important, and we need to talk about it to ensure that things will continue to improve on that front.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, there is something happening in this country that the government does not want Canadians to know, but my constituents can feel it in their paycheque. They sure notice it at the grocery store, and it really hits home when they open their heating bill and swallow hard before they look at the number. For the first time in our history, thanks to the Liberal government, Canada is getting bigger and Canadians are getting poorer. That is not my opinion; it is the national scoreboard. It is what the numbers tell us.
The government is supposed to be all about evidence-based decision-making. Well, I invite it to look at the evidence. This is what happens when the government that worships control forgets that freedom is the engine of prosperity. When the urban elite tries to run a country it does not understand, ordinary people pay the price. Bill C-15, the so-called budget implementation act, would not fix it; it would make it worse, hide it and excuse it.
Common sense used to guide this country. Now it is lefty Liberal woke ideology, reckless, expensive, downtown Ottawa ideology, steering every direction and decision.
The people who pay for this ideology do not live anywhere near the gated communities where it is dreamed up. The people who pay for this failed ideology work all day, every day, drink double-doubles and eat their grandmother's brown bread, while the folks who dreamed up the ideology work five and a half hours a day and drink goat's milk lattes while nibbling on their avocado toast. While my constituents get poorer, the Prime Minister takes another trip at the taxpayers' expense and avoids accountability here in the House.
My grandfather used to joke, “Don't stay in one place too long; someone will put you to work.” It seems the Prime Minister has taken that advice very seriously. Since becoming Prime Minister just eight months ago, he has visited at least 18 countries, some of them twice: France, Italy, Vatican City, Belgium, Netherlands, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Latvia, Mexico, Egypt, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, South Africa and the United Arab Emirates. He has visited the United Kingdom twice. Despite three visits to the United States and his promises of elbows up, the only deal Canada has been able to close with the United States since March is that former prime minister Justin Trudeau closed on Katy Perry.
The Prime Minister travels the world talking about growth and does what bankers always do: turn our hard-earned equity into debt. He waves his hands. He quotes big numbers. He smiles on red carpets. He talks about growth, but it is the kind of growth we get when we fill a hot-air balloon with cheap air; it looks big on the outside, while the people inside can barely breathe.
Real GDP per person, the number that matters to working people, has fallen two years in a row. Let us think about that. In one of the richest countries on Earth, after 10 years of Liberal leadership, the average Canadian is going backwards. Canada is a country running in reverse, and instead of taking responsibility, the government hands us Bill C-15, a bill built on the idea that if it spends enough more money, nobody will notice there is less in their pockets. Canadians notice. My constituents notice.
While all this is happening, the government spends its time on buying back hunting rifles from hunters and farmers. A government of socialists who confuse Elmer Fudd with Al Capone cannot be trusted. They crack down on the wrong people while at the same time they reward the wrong people, every single time. They are lecturing working folks about what kind of car they are allowed to drive, pushing $70,000 and $80,000 electric vehicles nobody asked for, when what most families really need is to fix the muffler on their 2010 Impala that gets them to work every morning.
The communities of Miramichi—Grand Lake seem like a long way from downtown Ottawa, but my constituents have sent me here to this town to stand in the House and tell it that this town, the government, has lost their confidence. The government has lost respect for the dignity of the hard work that ordinary Canadians, my constituents, take very seriously. The government regulates, mandates, restricts and lectures because it thinks Canadians cannot be trusted with their own lives. That is not governing; it is Liberal overreach.
Unemployment is climbing. Participation is flat. Young people cannot find work. Families are cutting back on everything except fear. Instead of embracing their values, the drive, the ambition and the grit of hard-working Canadians, the government clings to ideology that punishes every effort and rewards bureaucracy, yet the budget and the implementation bill tell Canadians, “Don't worry; Ottawa will take care of it.”
From what I have seen so far in this town, Ottawa cannot even take care of itself. Canada's tax burden sits at 34.8% of our entire economy, above the OECD average. People are paying more, working harder and getting less. Where I come from, we learn at a very young age not to take any wooden nickels, but that is exactly what the government is leaving in Canadians' pockets. Then there is the debt. The government can play games with the net debt and the gross debt all it wants, but Canadians get one bill at the end of the day, not two. Our debt sits at around 111% of GDP. One does not put out a fire by throwing more gasoline on it, but the budget does just that.
Behind all that spending and behind every photo op and ribbon cutting is the cold truth the Liberals refuse to face: Canada has a productivity crisis. We are not running out of workers; we are running out of growth.
Despite the fact the Prime Minister has bamboozled Ottawa and London bureaucrats for a living, Canadians know we cannot run a modern economy from a boardroom in Toronto or a cocktail reception in Paris. We build it in a machine shop, in a mill-yard, in a welding bay, by hanging drywall or by early mornings on a fishing boat on the small craft harbours in my riding that the government is allowing to fall into the water that surrounds them. Wherever real Canadians earn real paycheques is where the real economy is in this nation, and it is here where the government is failing every Canadian working man and woman.
Other countries are pulling ahead while we are falling behind. Instead of a plan to build a stronger engine, this budget gives us more government, more bureaucracy, more slogans and more of nothing.
For years, the government opened the immigration floodgates to asylum seekers while ignoring those who followed the rules, all of this with no matching plan for housing, health care or infrastructure. Last year, we added nearly three quarters of a million people to a country that cannot build homes fast enough. Then when the pressure became unbearable, the government slammed on the brakes. This is not leadership; this is panic, and the government is right to panic. It all stems from the mindset of a government that thinks it can shape a nation from the top down instead of trusting the bottom-up strength it has in its people.
Now the Liberals show up with Bill C-15 pretending nothing happened, that our systems are not failing, that the country is not straining under the weight of the government's many mistakes. Meanwhile, ordinary Canadians are paying the price.
In our justice system, the government has nearly lost control of our streets. In our education system, more and more private schools are replacing the public model. These foundations, which were built by earlier generations, foundations the government inherited, are eroding brick by brick.
I want to be very clear. Canada is not a failing nation; Canada has a failing government. This country is not broken, but the people running it are breaking it. Bill C-15 is the government's attempt to pretend decline is normal, that falling living standards are normal, that a future smaller than our past is normal. Canadians know better.
Decline is not destiny; decline is a choice. The Liberals have made that choice. They made it with 10 years of straight deficits. They made it with taxes that rise while paycheques shrink. They made it with an immigration system pushed past its capacity. They made it with productivity that falls while government grows. They made it with the debt piled onto the backs of children not yet born. This is what decline looks like before people wake up, and Canadians are waking up.
Canadians know that Conservatives will build a country where hard work pays off again, where taxes are low and paycheques are strong, where the budget is balanced and the government lives within its means like every family has to, where new Canadians join a system ready to support them, not one buckling under policy made here in Ottawa by the kids in short pants, and where productivity rises not because Ottawa orders it but because free people, free markets and free enterprise are allowed to breathe again. It is a country strong enough to carry its past, ambitious enough to build its future and confident enough to say it chooses growth, chooses freedom and chooses Canada.
The Liberals have made their choice with Bill C-15 and we will make ours. We voted against the budget and we will vote against this bill. We will stand for the working people who cannot afford another year of decline. We will offer this country something the government cannot: hope, direction, a plan and a future worthy of the nation we inherited.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the member opposite that I eat my grandmother's brown bread, that I am the son of a truck driver and that my mother is an administrative assistant. There are members on this side of the House who certainly know the value of putting programs in place that matter for Canadians. That is exactly why 22 million Canadians are going to benefit from the tax cut the member voted against, why we are putting generational investments into housing and why we have a superdeduction tax cut available to help stimulate the economy. There are a number of things in the budget.
The member mentioned policy made in Ottawa by kids wearing short pants, or something of that nature. It sounds like the member had his entire speech written for him by some kid from the Conservative side in short pants.
My question is this. If there are Conservatives across this country, Progressive Conservatives, who support this budget, why is the member against the type of measures we are putting forward, which are centrist, progressive and able to move this country forward?
Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee the member that I wrote the speech myself, but if a Conservative member had written the speech, they would have gotten it right. That is one thing we can guarantee on this side of the floor.
Over the last 10 years of the Liberal government, it has not gotten anything right for the real working Canadians we represent every day.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke at length about the importance of numbers and the importance of controlling a budget that includes spending and investments. However, numbers can be made to say whatever one wants.
The 2025 budget introduces a new method of calculating investments. The Bloc Québécois applied this calculation method to previous fiscal years. This revised calculation significantly changes the results of past years, because it changes the way certain expenditures and investments are recorded. For example, by applying the new calculation method introduced by the Minister of Finance, we see that in 2015-16, there would have been a surplus of $11.2 billion.
This new method therefore appears to be rather questionable. What does my Conservative colleague think?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, it seems the government has spent as much as it could since 2015, and the Liberals have kept deficit after deficit. Now with the new Prime Minister, they want to say they are a new government, but they are not a new government; it is the same circus, different clown.
What we have going on here is that the Liberals are saying it is all about investments instead of spending. They are just manipulating words to make it look like they are not spending money but investing money. That is what they are trying to say.
They are still spending money. We are still going to have deficits. My great-grandkids are going to pay for the deficits from the government's spending.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member. Despite the Liberal criticism, it was a great speech.
The member mentioned future generations. After five years and on of successive Liberal budgets, the Prime Minister said that he was going to spend less and invest more. However, over $321 billion will be added to our national debt.
Does the member think it is responsible to saddle future generations with this kind of credit card bill?
Mr. Speaker, there is a problem when the Prime Minister says he is putting in investments. If I invest in my house, I am spending money on it. At the end of the day, investments mean spending money.
I was in a classroom yesterday with grade 12 students in Rogersville. There were 20 kids in the class, and 15 of them told me they did not know what they were going to do when they were done university, if they get to go to university and can afford to go to university, and what they were going to do when they get out of high school. They know they are not going to have a fair shot of owning a home in the future. They are worried about whether they are going to get a job when they get out of high school. They are worried about the shape the country is in right now. Those 20 kids said the Conservatives were going in the right direction.
Mr. Speaker, this is a generational investment budget that recognizes the value of investing in Canada and investing in Canadians. The Conservatives have made the decision not to see the merit in doing that.
Why does the Conservative Party not believe in investing in Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives always believe in investing in Canadians. What we do not believe in is saddling future generations with debt they will never be able to afford and with higher taxes, over and over. When someone says “investment”, they are spending. It does not matter which way they put it or how they shape it, it always means spending money. That is what the Liberal government is good at: spending money.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, and what it means for my constituents in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.
First, I want to say a few things about budget 2025, a plan to build Canada strong. It comes at a time when Canada's economy is being deeply impacted by American tariffs. It is estimated that these tariffs are going to shave about $50 billion off our GDP, which works out to about $1,300 per Canadian. With this budget, we are focused on protecting the sectors that are most impacted by U.S. tariffs, including forestry, which is so important to my province of British Columbia. The demographic that is most impacted right now is young people, and this budget has investments that are going to create 175,000 jobs for young people.
This is a budget that is designed to spend less on government so Canadians can invest more. This will be done by reducing spending on government by about $60 billion over five years to create the fiscal room to get investment in Canada from both the public and private sectors. The measures in this budget are geared to driving $1 trillion in investment over five years to build the infrastructure we need as a country to diversify our trade internally, building on our work to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers, and externally, leveraging the 50-plus free trade agreements we have around the world.
The budget has key investments, like $13 billion for Build Canada Homes so we have an agency to build affordable housing at scale using prefabricated and modular designs; $51 billion in spending for public infrastructure, with a focus on housing-enabling infrastructure; $6 billion in new trade infrastructure for things like ports; and an additional $10 billion for the Canada Infrastructure Bank so we are able to make important investments like, for instance, building out the pan-Canadian grid, which includes the investment that was announced last week for the north coast transmission line. Importantly, the budget makes buy Canada the default for any government project to ensure that Canadians and Canadian companies are going to benefit from it.
In order to implement the budget, Bill C-15 changes a few dozen laws, and I want to use the remainder of my speech to discuss several of the key measures in this mix.
First, Bill C-15 would get rid of a handful of populist measures that may have sounded good, but in practice were hurting our communities. Division 2 of part 3 would amend the Underused Housing Tax Act to end the underused housing tax in respect of 2025 and future years. The UHT has been in effect for three years and has the noble goal of taxing property owned by non-Canadians that is not being used productively and not being put into the long-term rental pool. To see houses empty during a housing crisis rightly causes Canadians to be angry.
This measure is having an unintended impact on communities like Whistler, where the municipality has zoned certain areas to be short-term rentals and has required them to be that way by covenant. In fact, the municipality has sought foreign direct investment to build up the accommodation capacity to welcome visitors. The end effect is that we are taxing the investors we sought for an objective that could never be achieved.
After several years of lobbying to get an exemption for this, including getting a recommendation from the Standing Committee on Finance, these measures have now been repealed. I want to say a special thanks to Barrett Fisher, Dave Brown, Louise Walker and so many others for making this a possibility. In the end, it was found that administering the program actually costs more than the revenue that it was bringing in. Thousands of Canadians were being caught in a filing requirement despite never being the target. By repealing it in its entirety, this is no longer going to be an issue.
Second, Division 3 of part 3 would amend the Select Luxury Items Tax Act to end the luxury tax in respect of aircraft and boats. The luxury tax was brought in to put an additional tax on boats, planes and cars. Again, this sounds like a good idea, because why would we not want to tax luxury goods for the rich? It was clear from the beginning that this tax was going to be a disaster, and to no one's surprise, that is exactly what it turned out to be.
Just as in other jurisdictions that tried this, people decided to purchase other items that were not subject to the tax, like an additional home; delayed the purchase of items; or just bought them from another jurisdiction. The end result was a huge amount of lost government revenue and a loss of jobs in Canada. This very much hit home in my riding given the number of individuals involved in the boat construction industry.
It also hit the tourism industry, because we are seeing less investment in the purchases of new vessels for such things as whale watching tours, water taxis and others. Since the budget announced that this would be removed, we have seen hundreds of millions of dollars in new investments that have been promised and companies, such as those in the aerospace sector, promising about 600 new jobs that are directly tied to this change.
Budget 2025 creates and extends a number of measures that would drive productivity growth in our economy, such as the removal of the ones I just mentioned, through incentivizing private sector investment.
I want to mention just a few. By making some changes to the Income Tax Act and income tax regulations, we are bringing in what is called a productivity superdeduction. This temporary measure would allow businesses to immediately write off investments in such things as machinery, equipment, vehicles, digital systems and other productivity-enhancing technology at an accelerated rate. This is incredibly important right now because we are seeing lower investment in capital and equipment per worker in our economy than we are seeing south of the border, in the U.S. Especially with the tariff-induced uncertainty, we need to do all we can to drive investment in improving our productivity.
Locally, in West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, we rely on small and mid-size businesses that depend on modern equipment. We are seeing that things like this can help support more snowcats and groomers for the tourism sector, more heavy machinery for the construction sector or more equipment for the clean-tech sector, which is a fast-growing sector in my riding.
Further to that point, the budget makes changes to the SR&ED tax credits to provide tax incentives for companies doing research and development. I have heard how important this program is from constituents, and how those investments have helped many early stage companies, including in Squamish's clean-tech hub, to get off the ground. The changes in the budget implementation act would expand the eligibility for what these credits can go to, as well as the total amount.
In the remainder of my speech, I would like to touch on an area in which I believe the government missed the mark, and that is with the proposed changes to the greenwashing provisions. Last year, through amendments that were brought forward and passed through the finance committee and that, in fact, were passed unanimously in the House, we expanded the false and misleading advertising provisions of the Competition Act to cover the environmental claims that businesses make with respect to their operations in their entirety.
These changes now require such companies to be able to substantiate these claims using one of the many internationally recognized methodologies that are out there. These changes were prompted in part by some things we are seeing in our society, such as bus ads in which we see advertising saying that, somehow, liquid natural gas will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When this change to the law came into effect last June, we saw an immediate impact. We saw a number of companies putting disclaimers on their advertising. We saw other companies, such as the Pathways Alliance, taking down all of their communications, including such claims as that they are working to achieve net zero.
In the budget implementation act, division 43 of part 5 amends these changes to remove the requirement that this substantiation be done in accordance with an internationally recognized methodology. It also removes the third party private right of action at the tribunal. I think both moves are a mistake, but especially the latter.
While clearer guidance from the Competition Bureau on the acceptable methodologies would have been helpful, there are countless methodologies out there, such as ISO, ISSB, the GHG protocol and many others. If this measure is removed, it really puts the onus on government to finally finalize the long-promised sustainable finance measures, such as mandatory climate plans for companies and other climate-related reporting for businesses. Thankfully, the budget commits to moving forward in this.
The latter is the most concerning. In recent years, we have given the Competition Bureau significant new responsibilities and tools to tackle them with. The Minister of Industry's recent statement that we will be hawkish on competition further speaks to this, but with all of these new responsibilities, the commissioner does not have the ability to enforce all of them. That is why the third party private right of action is key. Things can take years to go through this process, and they are very opaque. The private cause of action already has a high bar to meet to utilize it, including that it needs to be in the public interest. Litigants cannot get judgments, and they can have costs awarded against them.
With that, I think it should be removed.
Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the member opposite recognize that the luxury tax on planes and boats was a disaster for his government, because Conservatives had said that. It appears the government also understands that the consumer carbon tax was a disaster, and it reversed position on that. It was a disaster not to build LNG and pipelines, and it looks as though the government is reversing on that.
Does the member not recognize that the spending of the government over the last 10 years has driven up inflation? The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that it is like pouring fuel on the inflationary fire.
Would the member not agree the $78 billion announced in spending is just going to drive interest rates and inflation up again?
Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with many of the pretexts of the member from Sarnia—Lambton's question. For such things as the consumer carbon tax, it is one of the most economically efficient ways of reducing emissions. It is also a measure that was actually a Conservative climate measure. Unfortunately, it was politicized by the Conservative Party. Frankly, that is too bad for our country.
In the budget, there are major investments made to increase the productivity of our country, which is incredibly important given the economic uncertainty we are living in right now. We need to make sure we are creating opportunity for Canadians of all stripes, and particularly Canadians in my generation. The budget does exactly that, with investments in public infrastructure and in the kinds of industries that are going to drive our growth going forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague described this budget as an investment budget for the country. However, we can see that this is not the case in several important economic sectors, particularly for Quebec. I am thinking of softwood lumber. Since the government has not taken action on this file, we have no choice but to hold a take-note debate this evening so that we can discuss this economic issue that is so important to Quebec.
Why have the Liberals dragged their heels on this issue? They portrayed themselves as the people who would save the agreement and save the negotiations with the United States, but they have waited so long that industries in Quebec have started shutting down. They have waited until the eleventh hour. Now we need to hold a debate to try to save an industry that is very important for Quebec.
What does my colleague think?
Mr. Speaker, softwood lumber is a very important industry in British Columbia, too. Before the budget, we announced programs worth $1.2 billion to support this sector. It is very important to find new markets and to have new products that we can use in Canada and sell to the world.
I think this evening's debate is a good way to look at how we can do more. However, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources has already said that there will be more measures soon. I think these measures will make a big difference to British Columbia, Quebec, New Brunswick and the other provinces.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is certainly a strong champion in the rural caucus of the Liberal Party, and I know he does great work in British Columbia.
I could not help but think, as I looked through the budget, about the emphasis on trade opportunities in the South Pacific. Our Minister of International Trade was involved, alongside the Prime Minister and the government, in securing trade access with Indonesia. Trade dynamics have opened up with Thailand. There is a big emphasis on port infrastructure. Certainly, in the engagement we have had with the PRC, there has been the establishment of the approved destination status, which is important for Chinese tourism. I know that it is particularly important in his home province of British Columbia.
I am wondering if the member can opine on any of what I just laid out around trade, the work this government is doing to build relationships around the world and the importance of that. We hear from the opposition benches that they do not want this government getting outside the country to actually engage. Maybe he can provide some comment on that.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly need to invest in our trade infrastructure. There is a deepwater port in my riding in Squamish, and we need to make sure we can access these new markets, get more free trade agreements and find alternative markets to the U.S. That is really critical.
As we are building these relationships, it is not just selling to new markets, but it is also making sure we can bring in new tourists. The new change to have group travel coming from China is massive, because that is one of the biggest markets for our country, with some of the biggest spenders. That will be really critical for our local economy.
Mr. Speaker, there is an age-old question in business classes: How much does a bottle of water cost? In a grocery store, it is about 25¢. At a restaurant, it is about $2.50. In an airport, it is $5. If someone was at a salmon festival in Newfoundland, it was 30°C and they ran out of water, they would have to pay $10 for a bottle of water passed through the fence. If someone was in the desert, in the heat, three days without water, I would say they would give their left kidney for a bottle of water.
The point is this: The more scarce something is, the more valuable it is. The reverse of that is true: The more abundant something is, the less valuable it is. It would be nearly impossible to sell a bottle of water next to a cold spring. The bottle of water is effectively worthless.
We do not really buy and sell things in this country; we trade. Those are arbitrary terms for trade. We trade products for currency. We trade one bottle of water for $1. We trade a vehicle for thousands of dollars. It is like the famous game of Catan, in which players have to trade resources to complete tasks. If there is a lot of wheat, players may pay four wheat cards to get one brick, but if the game is reversed, they may use four brick cards to get one wheat. It is supply and demand; it is Economics 101.
What happens when our dollar, our currency, loses its scarcity? It loses value. If we simplify our economy down to five loaves and $5, every loaf is worth $1. However, if we have five loaves and $500, every loaf is now worth the high price of $100. Is the bread really worth more? It is the same loaf, and it tastes the same; it is just that the currency is worth less. The baker cannot take his $100 and buy a new pair of shoes. In this hypothetical inflation, that new $100 can probably buy only a dozen eggs. A dozen eggs is still worth only one loaf of bread.
Members may say that eggs will never go that high. I will tell members this: In 1925, a dozen eggs was just 47¢. Now, it is $4.70. That is a 100% increase. The egg is still the same: same size, same taste, same egg. In fact, if the dollar never lost its value over time, the egg should actually be cheaper. because the farming industry has become more efficient and able to produce more eggs with fewer resources. Why did some eggs increase from 47¢ to $4.70? It is because our dollar is worth less. In 1925, $1 could get someone two dozen eggs. Now, $1 can only get someone about three eggs.
Why did the value of our currency drop? It dropped from overspending. The government does not have money. It spends money collected from taxes, but once it spends what is collected, it borrows or prints the money. This is where the problem comes from.
Throughout most of history, currency was actually gold and silver coins. They were hard to mobilize and easy for others to steal, so banks suggested we give them money, which they would secure. The banks would then give banknotes in lieu, which could be used to trade products. That was called gold-backed currency or, as we call it, the gold standard. That system worked until banks and governments realized that they could loan more money and even print money if they removed the gold standard.
Now our money is backed by a promise, a simple promise, a promise we make as Canadians to each other, a promise that we will accept a piece of paper as a trading token. The only problem we have is that the value of the trading token can simply be changed by increasing the amount in circulation.
What is the harm of printing money and causing inflation? If someone is a business person, perhaps an executive with Brookfield Asset Management or a trust fund baby such as Justin Trudeau, inflation means no more than water on a duck's back. They do not have fixed salaries; they have business incomes, and they are protected by their assets. If someone is an average Joe and gets a 1% raise at work, they are excited, but if inflation was 3%, that means the values of their wage went down by 3%, so they just got robbed. They actually got a 2% pay cut. However, if someone owns their own company with 3% inflation, they can simply put their prices up to match inflation without losing a cent. In fact, they can get on the news and convince the average Joe that they should invest in their companies because they have had record-breaking profits. We see this in the grocery stores.
Inflation is good for rich people in this country who are backed by assets. The average Joe puts money in a savings account. We get excited when we make 2% interest on our savings, but if inflation is 3%, we actually lose 1%. The rich keep their savings not in a bank account but in assets, so when inflation is raised to 3%, it is no big deal. Their real estate portfolio just increases as well.
I have heard our Conservative leader say over and over again that inflation is the cruellest form of taxation. It taxes the poor without them even knowing it. Nobody comes into the House, puts forth a bill and votes on it. They simply go to the boardrooms and make quiet decisions to make our money worth less. It is a slap in the face when governments get up and say that it is giving a 1% tax cut to 22 million Canadians while Canadians are losing 1.7% in inflation. The government just taxed us an extra 0.7% without us even knowing it. Someone making $60,000 in a year just lost 0.7%, or $420 in hidden inflationary taxes. They just lost 1.7% on all their savings. That, my friends, is exactly why the cost of living is going up and why we cannot afford the same things anymore. The Liberals have been borrowing and printing money, circulating billions more. We have seen this a lot in the past 10 years.
Since 2019 alone, the Canadian dollar has lost 16% of its value. Did Canadians at home get a 16% wage increase? It is not likely for many of us. Surprisingly, housing costs have not gone up in Canada compared with the price of gold. The average price of a home today is the same as it was in the early 1980s. If we had used a gold-backed currency that could not be devalued by money printing, houses would still be the same price today.
That is why the Conservative Party does not believe in budgets that balance themselves. We believe in fiscal responsibility. We need budgets that are not filled with generational debt and inflation. I am not looking to hold the Liberals to Conservative promises. I want to hold them accountable to Liberal promises. The Liberals ran a campaign on bringing in a fancy banker who was going to bring fiscal responsibility to the nation and save us by only having a $62-billion deficit.
However, here we are at a $78-billion deficit. The entire country's debt right now is at $1.3 trillion. We spend more money in interest, servicing this debt, than we pay out in health care payments to all the provinces right across this country. We spend more money servicing this debt right across this country than we get in GST revenues. Every time we go to the store and pay GST on something, it is just covering the cost of the interest on this $1.3-trillion debt.
Where did the Liberals decide to cut? They decided to cut $4 billion in the next few years from Veterans Affairs, the department that supports the people who fought for this country. Veterans are the reason we have our freedoms. It is disappointing and disgraceful. Even with those disgraceful cuts, the Liberals plan on adding another $300 billion in the next five years, totalling $1.6 trillion.
I travel across my district, and the wharves are deplorable. In fact, wharves right across Newfoundland and Labrador are deplorable. The Conservatives promised to double infrastructure spending for small craft harbours, but the Liberals decided they had to outdo us, so they promised to triple it. This budget comes nowhere close to doing that.
Then the Liberals promised national building projects right across this country. Almost every province got one except Newfoundland and Labrador. There was only one in Atlantic Canada, in fact. It was for Nova Scotia to build wind turbines. There was nothing for P.E.I., nothing for New Brunswick and nothing for my home province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have massive opportunities in gold and critical minerals through mining, critical minerals we need for Canadian sovereignty. We have massive oil and gas resources, massive potential in hydroelectricity and multi-billion dollar fabrication sites sitting idle, yet not one project was announced.
I cannot support the Liberal budget because the Liberal budget does not support Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that Memorial University has a great program in civil engineering. However, I would encourage the member to go back and get an economics degree from Memorial, because that was an interesting lesson in talking about examples without understanding that we are in a global economy. It was a cute speech in that sense but, in terms of its actual practicality, not very valuable to members of the House.
There are a few things I need to correct the record on.
On Veterans Affairs, we are not cutting $4 billion. That is an outright misconception the member is putting into the House.
We are changing the cannabis policy from $8.50 a gram down to $6. Is that really something that he is against as we try to find efficiencies? I do not think so.
In terms of the Sisson mine, that is a major project in New Brunswick. He seemed to gloss over that. In relation to projects in Newfoundland and Labrador, he should call his friend Premier Wakeham and ask him what he is putting before the House and what we are going to be working on. The member just—
On a point of order, I would like to know more about your cutting of services, Mr. Speaker, to Veterans Affairs.
My biography is available online for the chief government whip to look at.
I will let the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, through the Chair, respond.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I know you would never cut spending to Veterans Affairs.
I want to bring up this question: Why make the cuts to Veterans Affairs? Why not use the money to support veterans, rather than asking them if they would rather die when they are on the phone asking for help?
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague spoke at length about inflation.
The very high cost of energy is one of the causes of inflation. High energy costs are often caused by the huge profits that folks in the oil sector are making, not by carbon pricing. For example, from 2021 to 2024, they raked in a record-setting $131 billion. During that same period, those people, most of whom are connected to American companies, paid themselves about $80 billion in dividends. That means $10 billion a year leaves Canada and goes directly to the United States as dividends.
When my colleague looks at the oil and gas sector, does he not see it as a source of shame rather than a source of pride for Canada?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Quebec raised some good points.
Newfoundland and Labrador is doing the right thing. Newfoundland Labrador Hydro has a subsidy called Newfoundland OilCo. It has equity, sometimes up to 8% or 10%, in our offshore oil and gas industry so we can make sure Newfoundlanders and Canadians are getting a good cut and a good, fair percentage of that. It keeps our Newfoundlanders at work. It keeps our Canadians at work. We make billions of dollars off oil and gas in our province. Twenty-five per cent of Newfoundland's GDP comes from oil and gas, so when Conservatives promised to double oil and gas production in Newfoundland and Labrador, it would have added an extra 25% to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague, a fellow engineer, talk about all the money that should have been spent in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I agree.
I would like him to comment on the amount of money the Prime Minister is giving to other countries instead of putting Canadians first.
Mr. Speaker, I would love for the Liberals to give us an actual number for how much money is fleeing to other countries. I saw a video this morning on Instagram talking about how the Prime Minister was in another country saying that there would be trillions of dollars going to Europe. That just blows our minds. We have seen trillions of dollars going to Donald Trump in the United States.
I do not understand why we are not putting that money in Canada, putting Canada first and actually building Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, I realize this member is new, so he probably is unaware of the fact that it was Stephen Harper who made massive cuts to veterans' services, including nine offices. Also, he was not here when the Leader of the Opposition went on and on about how removing the carbon tax would fix all the inflationary problems, neglecting the fact that they are totally driven by global forces.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Order. There is crosstalking going on and I cannot hear myself.
The hon. member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell the country what was not happening when Stephen Harper was in government. Veterans were not calling Veterans Affairs begging for assistance and being asked if they would rather die with our MAID program. That was not happening under Stephen Harper's government. That would not happen under a Conservative government.
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to rise today as the federal representative for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas to speak in support of the implementation of a new budget for Canada, a pivotal investment in the future of our great country.
We are living through a fundamental shift in global trade, global alliances and the global economy. For decades, Canada and our democratic allies around the world relied on stable, predictable international trade partners. Today, that world no longer exists. Our largest trading partner is governed by an increasingly hostile and unpredictable administration. The Trump administration has not hesitated to illegally target Canadian industries, Canadian workers and Canada's national interests for its own short-term political gains.
In a moment like this, Canada cannot afford to stand still. We must take action to defend not only our economic prosperity but also our national sovereignty and very way of life. That is why the government is taking decisive action. We are taking action to protect our economic sovereignty and way of life because we believe fundamentally in the unity and strength of the Canadian people. As the Prime Minister said, we must take control of our own destiny.
This budget implementation act does exactly that. At its core, it has three clear priorities: to build, to protect and to empower. Canada's economic fundamentals remain the strongest in the G7 and in the world. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is the lowest in the G7. Employment growth remains steady, adding 67,000 new jobs in October and 60,000 the month before that. Canada continues to be one of the safest, most stable jurisdictions for business investments in the G7. The Canadian economy is well positioned for the future, but only if we act now.
For the first time, the budget makes a clear, important distinction between capital and operating spending. Of course, this is how businesses operate, as well as most families. There is a family's large capital investments, like the mortgage, house or car loan, and its operational expenses, like clothing, utilities, groceries, etc. In the federal government, we are making significant capital investments in housing, infrastructure, climate adaption and defence, investments that will build a stronger Canada for decades. Operational spending is being strategically managed and will be brought back into balance within three years. That is good fiscal policy, and it is long-term nation-building.
As the member of Parliament for Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, I want to speak directly to what I see in the budget for Hamilton.
Hamilton's infrastructure has benefited from significant levels of federal investment, but continued growth and modernization require even more. Now is the time for provincial and federal partners to build on that progress and deliver the next wave of funding to strengthen services, support housing and prepare Hamilton for the next generations to come.
This budget commits $115 billion over five years toward the building and repairing of infrastructure. For Hamilton, that would mean investments in transit, drinking water, waste-water and stormwater systems, community spaces and the critical infrastructure that underpins responsible and sustainable growth.
There is $25 billion over the next five years for housing, supporting and enhancing the incredible progress already being made in Hamilton through the Hamilton is Home coalition, one of the most ambitious housing initiatives in the entire country.
There is $30 billion over five years for defence, supporting Canada's manufacturing sector, an area where Hamilton plays a critical role. Hamilton's steelworkers, machinists and advanced manufacturing sector are all essential to Canada's national security and NATO commitments.
The government has also reaffirmed support for the Hamilton B-line LRT, the first phase of the rapid transit BLAST network that will transform the entire city. As I did when I served on Hamilton's city council, I am already looking beyond the B-line LRT toward future investment in the next phase of A-line light rail transit along the Upper James corridor, right from the John C. Munro Hamilton International Airport to the port and waterfront.
This is a budget that believes in Hamilton's future.
However, no federal budget, no matter how ambitious, can succeed without the involvement and collaboration of all levels of government, and that includes the Province of Ontario, led by Premier Doug Ford. Federal health transfers to Ontario continue to outpace provincial spending. We urge the Province of Ontario to direct sufficient health care funding toward hospitals and emergency care to improve patient outcomes and the working conditions of doctors, nurses and health care professionals. We urge the Province of Ontario to direct sufficient health care funding toward supports for addictions and mental health, because too often, these health care issues go unresolved and often lead to homelessness.
We are pleased to see that, just this week, Premier Ford is making new investments in Ontario's criminal justice system, strengthening Ontario's bail laws and adding resources to Ontario's jails and courts. The federal government is a willing partner, and we look forward to closer collaboration with the Province of Ontario.
Since the COVID pandemic, affordability and the cost of living have become top of mind for families across Canada, including in Hamilton, Ancaster and Dundas. This budget would strengthen the systems families rely on. Affordable child care gives parents the ability to build careers without sacrificing family, permanent school food programs ensure that children can learn and grow without hunger, a strengthened Canada child benefit lifts hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty and an increased old age security supports seniors in their retirement years. Critically, by offsetting municipal costs for infrastructure and housing, we would also reduce the pressure being placed on local municipal property taxpayers.
This is about creating opportunity, good jobs, strong communities and the ability for families to build the life they deserve. The mission statement of the City of Hamilton is “To be the best place to raise a child and age successfully”, and I believe this budget would move us closer to that goal.
Our government is also investing in opportunities for families to earn a secure living and afford a lifestyle they can be proud of. SEIU Healthcare, which represents 68,000 Canadian health care workers, says, “Budget 2025 will help build a stronger Canada by making life more affordable for 200,000 personal support workers...through a new tax credit.... More money in the pockets of PSWs means more care workers at the bedside of Canada’s seniors, and a stronger, more resilient public healthcare system.”
LiUNA Canada, a major partner in the city of Hamilton, says, “LiUNA welcomes the government's continued commitment to apprenticeship, union-led training, and workforce development. By recognizing the essential role of union labour in constructing the infrastructure that powers our economy, this budget reinforces Canada's path to growth, stability, and long-term prosperity. Let's build.”
The Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council said, “We're pleased to see the Federal Government's continued commitment to investing in Canada's workforce through this budget. Increased support for training and apprenticeships under the Union Training and Innovation Program, along with new opportunities for nation-building projects through the Major Projects Office, will help ensure skilled tradespeople can continue building the vital infrastructure Ontario and Canada rely on.”
The president of Canada's Building Trades Unions says, “I also welcome the new Build Communities Strong fund, which includes a generational investment of $50 billion for local infrastructure projects, with a focus on using unionized labour and Community Employment Benefit Agreements. I’m very pleased to see the $450 million for the Strategic Response Fund, which will support tens of thousands of workers and key sectors, from lumber to steel to the auto industry.”
Voters across Canada elected a government that believes in Canada, invests in Canada and trusts Canadians. This budget would build the infrastructure we need for our future and would invest in our country. The budget implementation act is about building a resilient, confident and sovereign Canada that protects our workers, supports our families, strengthens our democracy and secures our place in a rapidly changing world. It is a budget that would build, protect and empower. Finally, it is a budget that reflects the very best of who we are as Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned seniors. I recently had a conversation with Carole from Seniors Tin Cup, which is an organization that supports seniors. One of the things that really shocked me is that 11.5% of single seniors live below the poverty line, which is an increase of 6.3%.
How can the member justify that this budget would support seniors when there is absolutely nothing in it for them?
Mr. Speaker, affordability for seniors and families is central to this budget. This budget meets a specific moment in time when we are redefining the entire Canadian economy for the next century. Those investments are critical in making sure that seniors, families and young people have the opportunities they deserve in their communities. This requires focus and investment from the federal government, and I am proud to be part of that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the question that my Conservative colleague asked. It is true that the government is bragging about helping everyone, but it is clear that many people and businesses have been left behind. I spoke about this earlier in my questions, but my colleague raised the issue of seniors just now.
The government does not seem to realize just how badly it has let them down. People aged 65 to 74 are still not entitled to the increase in old age security that those aged 75 and above received. We talk about inflation and people who are having trouble making ends meet on a fixed income, and seniors are among them. Why is this government so obstinate about this? I had discussions with representatives of FADOQ and the AQDR, which advocate for seniors in Quebec, and they feel that this government has completely forgotten about them.
How can the government brag about helping seniors when it is not heeding their demand to increase pensions for people aged 65 to 74 as it did for those aged 75 and above? There is nothing for seniors in this budget.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, as I said, this budget would strengthen the systems that families, seniors and people rely on, such as providing affordable child care, helping families enter the workforce, saving families money, making school food programs permanent, making sure that all students have the ability to learn on a full stomach and increasing old age security.
My kids happen to be 17 and 19. I am very concerned about what their future will look like. I am also entering that stage when I am concerned about where my parents are going to live and about their success for years to come. This budget would set the foundation for what they need in their future.
Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to watch the exchange between the member for King—Vaughan and my hon. colleague. She made the claim that there is nothing for seniors in the budget. I see $5 billion for health care infrastructure. Public health is important for everyone, but certainly for seniors. I think about the fact that our programs have maintained support for dental care. I have talked to countless numbers of seniors in Kings—Hants who have benefited from that program. I think about the introduction of pharmacare.
Those are all things the Conservative Party voted against. The member, in her role as the shadow critic, needs to take a closer look at the budget to see the things that we, as the Liberal Party, have put on the table. The fact is that the government is maintaining these programs.
I look to the Bloc. It says in one breath that the budget was too expensive, notwithstanding that we are recalibrating spending, but then asks for billions of dollars for programs without taking targeted approaches to lower-income seniors, which is the way we have handled our affairs.
Does the member care to comment on that as a way to finish this off?
Mr. Speaker, certainly, there are programs in the budget that specifically address the needs of seniors. One of the issues facing seniors, especially those on a fixed income, is increasing municipal property taxes. When they are in their home and on a fixed income, they cannot afford year-over-year property tax increases. This budget would address that by directly funding municipal infrastructure, which would offset some of the costs that would otherwise be downloaded to municipalities and passed on to seniors.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand here in this place as a member of Parliament representing Newfoundland and Labrador, and especially the riding that sent me here, now known as Central Newfoundland.
I stand today to talk about Bill C-15, the budget implementation act, and the impacts it would have on ordinary Canadians, Newfoundlanders and the folks from Central Newfoundland, as well as the impacts it would have on industry in Canada. This is my take on this budget, as the shadow minister for fisheries and oceans.
Budget 2025 lays out a $78-billion deficit. There is a Liberal spending problem in this country. The Liberals have increased our national debt by as much as all of the governments in Canada that preceded this one, and they have done it in just 10 years.
How do we pay for that debt? Where does the money come from? One simple way is by selling bonds and paying interest to the bondholders, but who is really paying the lease on those new printed dollars? It is ordinary Canadians, and the cost is $55 billion. That $55 billion could be giving relief to Canadians and lowering their cost of living. It is more than the amount spent on health care by the federal government or collected in HST. This big debt is breaking Canadians, and half of that $55 billion in interest is due to the Liberal government.
Printing money devalues a nation's currency. We recall pictures of Germany in World War II, when it took a wheelbarrow full of money to buy a loaf of bread. Inflation here is not quite that bad yet, but it is getting up there with the doubling of food bank usage since the Liberals came to power.
We are really reaping what we have sown in Canada. Let me rephrase that. We are reaping what the Liberals have sown since 2015. Not only do they have a spending problem; they now have a revenue problem. We have lost billions of dollars in revenue in mining and oil and gas, and we are feeling that now. Canada is a country with a vast social net for citizens, but it has to be paid for. If we cannot harvest our resources properly, we are leaving revenue on the table.
In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the last three years, we have not had one bid on an offshore lease for oil and gas. No one wants to take a chance on investing in an exploration program in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore with the unconstitutional Bill C-69. In the case of Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia, we have Bill C-49, which industry experts tell me is an even bigger drag on investment in Newfoundland and Labrador's offshore than Bill C-69. The last little piece here is the emissions cap, but I am told it is not as crippling as Bill C-49.
How many billions of dollars are we losing in royalty revenue? In the case of Bay du Nord, which took almost 1,300 days for permitting, for every day that project is not producing, $333 million in royalties is stranded. I hope that paints a little picture.
There is continued crippling of the oil and gas and mining industries by the Liberal government, and false narratives are being spun. Liberals talked in the budget about how the emissions caps may go one of these days if A, B, C, D, E, F and G are all done, but there is no guarantee that emissions caps will be gone. They will not be gone based on what is in the budget, because it is all hypothetical, yet Liberals and certain media in Newfoundland and Labrador have touted the budget as being the end of emissions caps or production caps. It is a false narrative that has been spun.
The Prime Minister talks a big talk about national projects, but in the meantime, billions and billions of dollars continue to flee Canada, and it is not going to stop until the crippling red tape I outlined earlier gets cut. The resource industry-killing pieces of legislation desperately need to be changed. It is more important for resource provinces to have proper legislation in place than it is to continue to keep them on the dole, to keep them waiting for handouts, always beholden to Ottawa.
I will speak a little about how the budget relates to the fishery. I just alluded to the misleading nature of the Prime Minister. In the election, the Liberals promised a $250-million expansion of the small craft harbours budget. There is nothing in the budget except mentioning money that was promised. In fact in one instance, and I do not know who proofread the budget, it refers to 2022 and 2023 small craft harbours money. It is unbelievable.
Continuing on down to the shoreline on the fishery, a big report just came out of the Marine Institute at Memorial University, which talked about the amount of predation by seals on the fish stocks. This new study says that 24 times more fish are consumed by harp seals alone than in the fisheries catch rates. The harp seal accounts for only about half of the biomass of seals in the Atlantic Ocean, considering it is only one of five species.
Since 2010, Canada's fishing industry has had its GDP shrink. In the meantime, Norway's GDP in the fishery has increased 4.5-fold in the same length of time. I see the pittances put in the budget, about $20 million a year for agricultural food and seafood product marketing, and it is a joke. It is a slap in the face for the fishing industry. For folks in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, P.E.I., New Brunswick and Quebec, which have seen tariffs due to China, the China fiasco that is on the go, it has cost the industry about $100 million this year.
I will not be supporting the budget. It is an amateur scrapbook job.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to compare Conservatives, and the member in particular, to the Liberal government. Let us think of the national school food program, a program that feeds children. What does the member specifically have to say about that program? He was very clear that the national school food program was “garbage”. Wow. That is what he said.
I believe that the member owes an apology to all Canadians with respect to the school food program. Will he stand up today and apologize on behalf of himself and the Conservative Party for their approach on this national program that is there to care for our children?
Mr. Speaker, if there is anyone in the House who needs to apologize, it is the bigmouth from Winnipeg who is always spinning that false Liberal narrative.
Fewer than 10% of schools in Canada can take advantage—
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has to be some decorum in the House, please. The insults are not acceptable. Canadians are counting on us to have good debate about important issues. I think the member's comment is out of line. I have a deep respect for both members. I want to highlight that.
That is a great reminder. The Standing Orders for decorum still apply, so I remind the member for Central Newfoundland to be careful with his words.
I will let the member finish, and then we will continue with debate.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I will say, “an overused and extremely loud mouth from the other side”.
The Liberals continue to tout the social programs they come out with that just do not work.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I hope my question does not upset my colleague, because I do not want to be known as the loudmouth from Saguenay. I hope he will not be too offended.
In the budget, there is a line that specifically mentions Pathways Plus, a carbon capture and sequestration project. The federal government is going to give the greedy oil and gas sector tax credits so that it can reduce the carbon footprint of oil. That makes absolutely no sense when you consider the fact that all those oil and gas companies made record profits from 2021 to 2024 and most of the money paid out in dividends goes to the United States.
Does my colleague agree with me that it is unrealistic to try to reduce the carbon footprint of the oil and gas sector, and that taxpayers should not have to pay for that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we do not have another energy source on this planet that is proven and that has the infrastructure in place to replace petrochemicals and fossil fuels. It is just not feasible. I know that the Bloc Québécois is completely against oil and gas, but for the foreseeable future, that is where we are, and the world is not pulling away from it in a way that is going to make that party happy.
Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to comment on this. We have heard a few speeches in the House today, and one of the Liberals said that the Liberals decided to take out the unused housing tax because it had “unintended” consequences. This was a recurring theme of theirs in 2024 when they came up with this at the eleventh hour to get rid of the changes they had made for trusts.
I wonder whether the member could tell me if there are any other issues that he could say have unintended consequences that we might be able to bring to the attention of the Liberals to change some of their ways.
Mr. Speaker, we have some issue with the Prime Minister's conflict of interest with Brookfield. A lot of Canadians think that Brookfield properties are going to stand to gain a tremendous amount of money because of the housing crisis we have right now. A number of folks have come to me asking if it is it possible that the Liberals manufactured the crisis so their insider friends could actually benefit from it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today to speak about Bill C‑15.
I want to begin by acknowledging that today is November 25. Like every year, today marks the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. I must stress the importance of our efforts to address violence against women, including domestic violence.
In an increasingly uncertain world, it is up to us to adapt our economy, strengthen our supply chains and adapt to the new geopolitical reality of uncertainty. Budget 2025 provides a plan for building a stronger, safer, more resilient Canada.
[English]
The budget implementation act would make strategic investments in our country to build out our economy to build out our infrastructure, protect Canadian jobs, protect our Arctic, protect our national sovereignty and empower Canadians to think bigger, to grow bigger and to realize their full potential. The legislation would, for example, double the pace of affordable homebuilding over the next decade through the new Build Canada Homes. This unprecedented investment in housing construction in budget 2025 constitutes the most ambitious plan for housing in a generation.
[Translation]
When I think of our plan to build strategic national infrastructure and when I envision the Canada of tomorrow, I think of our high-speed rail project linking Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec City. It involves building Canada's first real high-speed train, capable of reaching speeds of 300 kilometres an hour or more, on nearly 1,000 kilometres of new dedicated, fully electrified tracks in the country's most densely populated corridor, home to roughly 18 million Canadians. With the bill before the House, we are taking a decisive step toward building this modern, clean and fast network; it is future-oriented infrastructure that will forever transform how we travel.
About 10 days ago, I stood alongside the Prime Minister to inaugurate the main segment of another train, our magnificent REM, which now connects the south shore to the north shore, passing through downtown Montreal and the middle of my riding of Outremont at Édouard Montpetit station. With a top speed of 100 kilometres an hour, it is not quite the 300 kilometres an hour of the future high-speed train, but it is truly a transformative project that has been supported from day one by the federal government and represents the biggest expansion of public transit in Quebec in over half a century.
Our national strategy to modernize our modes of transportation, from the REM to the future high-speed rail, is closely tied to our climate competitiveness strategy. The fight against climate change is not just a moral obligation, but it is also an economic imperative. Investments in clean energy are already outpacing investments in fossil fuels. The clean-tech market is set to triple within 10 years. Our government remains fully committed to meeting our greenhouse gas reduction targets. Our bill strengthens this commitment by improving and expanding the suite of investment tax credits that support clean technologies and clean manufacturing, providing Canadian businesses with the certainty they need to invest and innovate.
[English]
Our budget strengthens Canada's climate competitiveness by enhancing industrial carbon pricing with a long-term price trajectory; strengthening methane regulations for the oil, gas and landfill sectors; updating clean electricity and clean fuel standards; and incentivizing clean-tech investments. The legislation before the House would ensure that it is Canadian workers who will build the clean industries the world is demanding from us.
Building out a clean economy means investing in the next generation of workers who are going to power it. I was proud to join the Minister of Environment last Saturday in Mile End in my riding to confirm and to celebrate the launch of Canada's first-ever youth climate corps, an initiative championed by so many people across the country, so many young people in particular.
I want to stop to thank Climate Action Network for its passionate and professional advocacy.
A year ago, just outside this chamber, outside those doors, I met with a young constituent of mine named Shir, who had travelled all the way to Ottawa from my riding to push for this very idea. Back then, it was just that, an idea. Many conversations later with Malaika, Bushra, Caroline Brouillette, their executive director, and so many more, it is here in black and white, in the federal budget. It is a new program for youth job placement, for skills training, for concrete and real action on climate created by young Canadians, for young Canadians.
To all the young people in our country who have an idea, who care about an issue, the youth climate corps was the dream of a few and then the dream of many; now it is a national program in this country. We should never underestimate the power of one. We should never underestimate what can be accomplished here in Canada.
I will now very quickly address research innovation and entrepreneurship. The business community has rightly hailed the scope and potential of our new productivity superdeduction, designed to make it more attractive for businesses to invest in machinery and equipment, in technology and productivity-enhancing assets.
I also want to highlight two other measures that did not get as much airtime. First, the legislation before us would deliver a major expansion to the SR&ED tax credit, the scientific research and experimental development tax incentive. This tax credit encourages Canadian innovators to develop and commercialize cutting-edge ideas here at home. Our small and medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs have asked us to expand this fabulous program, which they rely on, and the federal government has listened.
Another piece that is critical to our economic growth in the new economy is to build Canadian intellectual property. Strong IP is essential to building Canadian innovation that competes and wins on the global stage. That is why our federal government is extending support for Canada's entrepreneurs to secure patents, helping small businesses leverage and commercialize their intangible assets and ensuring that our businesses can protect their IP in global markets. We are also launching a comprehensive review of Canada's IP performance to strengthen our capacity to turn Canadian ideas into Canadian wealth. In short, we are making sure that when Canadians invent the future, Canadians own it and Canadians reap the benefit from it.
The budget also cracks down on financial fraud and scams, and it implements open banking to give consumers more control over their financial data. It is a little-known fact, but one measure that will have an impact on many vulnerable Canadians in this country is that the legislation before us would increase the amount immediately available after depositing a cheque from $100 to $150.
[Translation]
The bill before the House also reaffirms the key role that culture plays as a vital driving force behind our collective identity. Our government is there to support our artists, our creators, our authors, our musicians and all of our cultural industries so that they can keep telling our stories and be the voice of Canadians at home and abroad.
What immediately comes to my mind is the power of music to bring people together, to connect regions and generations, and to remind us of everything that unites us. The Canada Music Fund plays a particularly important role in this regard. It is administered in part by Musicaction, an outstanding organization based in Le Plateau-Mont-Royal, in my riding, which supports homegrown talent and propels them to reach new heights.
I look forward to celebrating the tens of millions of dollars in federal government funding that Musicaction is going to receive. Our message is clear: To invest in culture is to invest in what Canada is all about.
[English]
I will end by saying that this is more than a budget or a piece of implementing legislation. It is a decision to throw down the gloves and build this country; to build the housing, the high-speed rail and the infrastructure; to protect the vulnerable, our innovation through IP, our borders and our sovereignty through a new defence industrial strategy; and to empower consumers through greater choice, empower entrepreneurs to grow and innovate, empower the business community to invest here and, yes, empower young people to dream in a Canada where absolutely anything is possible.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned the SR&ED tax credit and that it is to support innovation in Canada, which I agree with. It is intended to support Canadian companies with research and innovation in Canada.
Can the member explain why Huawei, a non-Canadian, Chinese company, got $100 million back in this credit?
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the Conservatives have noticed we have expanded SR&ED. SR&ED is an integral part of the budget because it is going to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to do more research and development. We are going to help them invest and reinvest into their companies, because that is what we know needs to happen in order to grow this economy.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague talked about culture. I would like to come back to that point.
When it comes to ensuring discoverability, particularly for Quebec's French-language culture, the web giants are not helping us much. The government could have used the budget to tax the web giants, but, unfortunately, it dropped this measure and the chance to collect revenue. This does not contribute to the discoverability of French-language content either.
From the Bloc Québécois's perspective, this tax could have been used as a fund to help not only Radio-Canada, but also, in terms of culture and discoverability, community and private media that enable this discoverability.
Why did my colleague completely leave out this aspect of our culture, namely community and private media?
Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time I have heard the Bloc Québécois talk about the significant investment we have made in culture in this budget. This is very important, and it should be noted that the Quebec caucus, which now has 44 members, worked hard to secure these investments in culture.
My colleague referred to local media. That is certainly something to be considered.
However, let us talk about the investments in CBC/Radio-Canada, as well as those in Musicaction, which I discussed in my speech, not to mention the many theatres and live art shows that will benefit from the investments in this budget.
I think we have been clear. The government has listened to Quebeckers when it comes to investments in culture.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the comments that were shared by the member and the contribution she makes in so many different ways. I really appreciated her opportunity to also talk about IP, intellectual property, which is really important in the riding of Waterloo. The University of Waterloo is notorious for ensuring that research academics actually own their IP so that they have a vested interest. I would love to hear from the member, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, in regard to the benefits of the budget. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo are really asking for constructive debate, ensuring that more Canadians can benefit. They recognize that the official opposition has just been dialing it in. They do not want to be constructive in their feedback. They do not want to be part of the solution.
We would love to hear what she feels the budget can deliver for Canadians and how it will actually benefit constituents in the riding of Waterloo, her constituents and Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Mr. Speaker, Waterloo, in many ways, resembles a piece of my riding in the Mile End, which has enormous potential for economic growth because it contains so many small start-ups and so much new innovation. The budget really answers the call for those entrepreneurs and those individuals who want to be part of the economy of the future. The productivity superdeduction is there, of course, but there are also a lot of smaller measures that are going to help small businesses and entrepreneurs throughout the country in order to develop their ideas and in order to protect their ideas. As I mentioned and the member mentioned, Canadian intellectual property is extremely important, and we are going to build that out in order to ensure that Canadians own the ideas of the future.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague knows, there are 1.6 million Canadians living with a brain injury in this country. In the last Parliament, Bill C-277 was passed unanimously to report stage.
It was not in the budget to support a national brain injury strategy. Will she—
Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have, I would like to say how important that member's advocacy has been on brain injuries. I look forward to meeting with him and Brain Injury Canada later this evening. I look forward to working with him in order to create a national strategy in this country.
Mr. Speaker, budget 2025 was supposed to mark what we were told was going to be a generational shift in this country. That is what we were told. When it came to housing, the government promised something truly historic. In fact, the budget documents declared rather boldly, I might add, that budget 2025 was the most ambitious housing plan since the Second World War, backed by more than $11 billion in a brand new top-down federal initiative called Build Canada Homes. That is a pretty big claim, and when a government promises to match the scale of what Canada achieved in the Second World War, it is probably worth remembering just how extraordinary that moment was in Canadian history.
Back then, Canada was not just short on housing; we were in a full-blown emergency. Ten years of economic depression, followed by six years of war, had nearly wiped out homebuilding in Canada. When peace finally came, over a million veterans returned in a matter of months. They were getting married, starting families, looking for work and looking to start their futures, but Canada simply did not have any homes.
We know this from the debates in this very House. On August 12, 1944, then finance minister James Lorimer Ilsley warned Parliament that housing had become one of the gravest domestic problems facing the nation. He described overcrowding, rising rents and a shortage of adequate dwellings in every major centre, and he was not exaggerating. According to the government's own 1946 report on housing and community planning, Canada was short more than 200,000 homes. Cities were reporting families living in garages, converted barracks and temporary wartime huts. Wartime Housing, which was a temporary agency during the war, had to expand its operations because so many Canadians simply had nowhere else to go.
Here is the critical lesson from that era: Canada solved that crisis. We solved it with focus, with urgency and with a government that understood that its job was not to control everything but to clear the way for builders, for communities and for families. When the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation was created in 1946, its mandate was clear: accelerate construction, cut through bureaucracy and partner with the private sector to rebuild the country. It worked.
Between 1947 and 1955, Canada built more homes per capita than at any other time in our history. Entire communities were built from the ground up. Neighbourhoods in Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary, Vancouver and Halifax flourished. Builders built, trades worked, families prospered, and the government kept costs low and approvals fast. It stayed in its lane. It empowered Canadians instead of layering on more red tape. That was the formula. That is the lesson.
The contrast with today's reality simply could not be sharper. Young Canadians now face a housing crisis that by many measures is even worse than what we faced in 1945. The Bank of Canada and Statistics Canada tell us that housing is more unaffordable relative to income than at any other time in our history. Government-imposed costs, development charges, fees, taxes and regulatory delays equal between 30% and 50% of the price of a new home in major cities in this country. The C.D. Howe Institute and the Canadian Home Builders' Association have been telling us this.
The CMHC, the very agency created to cut red tape back then, now warns that red tape is one of the biggest barriers to building the homes Canadians need. Their 2023 “Housing Supply Report” confirms that Canada builds fewer homes per capita today than we did in the 1970s, despite having the fastest population growth in more than half a century.
This is not because Canadians have somehow forgotten how to build. We have some of the best builders and tradespeople in the world. It is not because we lack the land, the lumber or the talent. This is a crisis created by government, with layer after layer of fees, years-long approvals timelines and endless paperwork. It is a system so slow and so expensive that viable projects become unaffordable before a shovel even hits the ground. Instead of cutting through the barriers, the government keeps building new bureaucracies, including a fourth federal housing body. They then call it ambition.
Budget 2025 was supposed to break this cycle, but instead of addressing the real structural problems, it would simply repeat the approach that has been failing Canadians for almost a decade. The Prime Minister promised to cut development charges in half, for example. In budget 2025, there is nothing about that. He promised to incentivize private rental construction through the old MURB program. Budget 2025 says nothing about that either. He promised a “generational shift”, but we know the first six projects announced under the Build Canada Homes announcement are all Canada Lands Company projects that it has been working on for years.
While the government claims to be fighting the gatekeepers, it continues to reward the worst offenders. Let us look at Toronto. After charging massive development fees, including a 40% increase just after receiving approval for its $471-million housing accelerator fund, a deal it is not even honouring today, the federal government still handed the city $283 million for a sewer project that it had already charged developers for. The government is rewarding failure. It is rewarding the worst housing gatekeepers in the country.
Meanwhile, the scale of the crisis continues to grow. CMHC tells us that Canada needs 480,000 homes a year for the next 10 years to restore affordability. This year, we have not yet reached 200,000 starts. In fact, 2025 is on track to being the worst year for homebuilding in three decades.
Young Canadians are doing everything right. They are working hard and are saving what they can, but they still cannot afford a home. They are delaying families. They are delaying their careers. They are delaying life itself because they cannot find or afford a place to live. This is not the Canada we want to leave them, and it does not have to be this way.
The postwar generation showed us exactly what works when we take the housing crisis seriously. They kept costs down. They reduced government barriers. They aligned federal, provincial and municipal efforts. They partnered with builders instead of fighting them, and they measured success by one outcome: getting homes built.
This is the approach the Conservatives would bring back. We would lower the cost and burden of government, because every delay and every dollar added by government adds to the price of a home. We would eliminate duplication, streamline approvals and bring common-sense timelines to projects. We would reward municipalities that open doors and stop giving money to those that slam them shut. We would treat housing as a national priority, not just as a slogan but as a mission grounded in results.
Canadians are practical. They are builders and problem solvers, and our history proves it. After the war, we did not back away from the scale of the challenge; we met it head-on, and in the process, we built a future that gave families hope, stability and prosperity.
Budget 2025 fails all the Canadians who believed the Prime Minister when he promised to build at a scale not seen in generations. We can do it again. The example is in our own history. Young Canadians deserve a government that works as hard as they do, that cuts red tape instead of adding it, that empowers builders instead of blocking them, that rewards cities that are getting the job done, not the ones that are not doing the job, and that focuses on what matters, which is getting more homes built so every Canadian has a safe place to live. Canada has beaten the housing crisis before, but budget 2025 does not even come close to the ambition required for the scale of the problem today.
I would encourage the finance minister to look back in our history to the work of another era, at a time when Canada recognized the scale of the crisis in housing and took bold action to meet the challenge head-on. I would encourage the Minister of Housing to understand the scale of the crisis today and that it does call for bold, sweeping action. I wish he understood that his proposals tinker around the edges of the real root cause of the problems in the housing crisis. He is waiting to see if they work, and that time is over. I wish he understood that without bold action, today's housing crisis is quickly becoming a housing catastrophe.
Budget 2025 does not meet the moment. It fails an entire generation of young Canadians who dream of achieving what their parents and their grandparents simply took for granted. We have done it before. We can do it again. We must do it again.
Mr. Speaker, I find it amazing that the member would talk about housing in the fashion he has. When we stop and think about it, his own leader, the leader of the Conservative Party, was at one time the minister responsible for housing. He built six houses. I still do not know where they are in Canada, but apparently he built six homes. The member talked about tinkering. Never have we seen, in the last 50 years, a prime minister commit hundreds of millions of dollars and work with provinces and municipalities to ensure we build homes in all the different regions.
The Conservatives say not to invest in Canada; that is all we hear from them. How can the member honestly say the Conservatives are concerned about housing when in fact they—
Mr. Speaker, what I am not surprised about from the member is that he seems to believe that everyone should live in government-owned homes. Conservatives believe that it is a right of Canadians to own their own home. We think the government should get out of the way and not try to own everything, not try to control everything.
In fact, the example I gave is what we did right after the war. It was a Liberal government that got out of the way, that got government out of the way, that got homes built and that built the middle class. I wish he understood that.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech but, once again, what emerged was a desire for centralization. Know-it-all Ottawa is trying to lecture municipalities and impose its ideas on them.
I have a question for my colleague. Why not simply support the Bloc's housing and infrastructure ideas? We asked the government to renew the rapid housing initiative and make it permanent. That is how Quebec successfully built social and community housing. We also asked for an unconditional infrastructure transfer specific to Quebec.
These measures would have allowed the government to help Quebec build housing without encroaching on municipalities or Quebec and without beating them over the head.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I will be very clear that Conservatives do not believe in further unconditional grants to cities and provinces. We believe in funding infrastructure based on one result only, and that is the number of homes that get built.
With regard to the days of just giving money and hoping for the best, that has clearly failed. That is from 10 years of Justin Trudeau. That is not what we need anymore. It is what we need to change and Conservatives will do it.
Mr. Speaker, I was crunching some numbers and saw that the Liberals committed more than $89 billion to housing, yet housing costs have doubled. They have already created three bureaucracies, which have helped lead to young Canadians not being able to afford a home and losing the dream of home ownership. They are now creating a fourth bureaucracy.
Can my colleague please elaborate on the lunacy of this fourth bureaucracy and the lunacy of the Liberals' housing plan in general?
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that my hon. colleague understands the problem in housing. This is a guy who used to build homes, so he actually understands the cost of local government, the cost of delays of the local government and the cost of development charges.
What the current federal Liberal government promised to do in the election campaign was to get development charges cut in half in cities where they are way too high. There is nothing in budget 2025 about that.
The Liberals have failed Canadians. When the real costs and real delays in getting homes built are at the local level and government costs are over 30% of the cost of a home, we know the solution. It is not another bureaucracy. It is getting government out of the way.
Mr. Speaker, I have a newsflash for the member. This is not just about the government owning homes. Let me give us a specific example. The first-time homebuyer exemption for GST will enable young people, in particular, to afford to buy homes. This is very good. It is in the budget.
Will the Conservatives not recognize that the blanket opposition to all housing initiatives coming from the Conservative Party today is wrong?
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for demonstrating that he does not understand the scale of the problem. In fact, the industry has told us over and over again that cutting the GST on all homes under $1.3 million is the only thing that will get the market moving again. It is not just us. Mike Moffatt, the Liberals' housing adviser, says the exact same thing. Why do they not listen to him?
Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to be recognized in today's debate.
When I am going to be speaking, I make a point to come into the chamber to listen to the debate and hear what has been going on so that I am not just coming in here and reading a speech that I wrote in advance. Quite frankly, I do that because I really like to respond to some of what I have heard in the chamber, and I have heard a lot today already: a lot of rhetoric and a lot of what I would characterize as misinformation coming from the Conservatives.
The member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas gave us a great speech today on economics and how an economy works. I know that his degree is in engineering, but Professor Rose at Queen's University, who taught me economics, would be proud of the way that he, almost like a textbook definition, discussed how an economy works. Unfortunately, the reality is that he probably only studied the microeconomy and did not bother looking at the macroeconomy, which gets into global forces and what happens when we open up our borders, introduce free trade and start trading globally.
The member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas would want us to believe that everything within our economy, in particular in his description related to inflation, is only caused by the government. I will give him the benefit of the doubt since he is new here and did not spend the last three years in this House listening to the Leader of the Opposition basically say the same thing to Canadians day in and day out. The Leader of the Opposition was the member for Carleton back then, and now he is from somewhere in Alberta, maybe next week from somewhere else, but he made the same claim over and over that if we just got rid of the carbon tax, all inflation would be gone. That never happened, because the reality of the situation is that so many other variables impact inflation.
For starters, we can look at climate change. It is going to impact the cost of food, point blank; that is just going to happen. It decreases crop yield, it increases production costs and it affects supply chain distribution. These are real impacts that have effects on the cost of food.
It is much easier for the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas to say that when we print more money, we get inflation. I read that in textbooks too, but unfortunately, the reality is that it is much more complex than that. Although I have great respect for engineers, and Queen's University has a great engineering program, I would really encourage the member to perhaps do another degree in economics so he can get a more holistic and complete view of this.
I was talking about misinformation, and what the member for Terra Nova—The Peninsulas said was specifically about veterans services. He said there would be $4 billion in cuts to veterans services. He is just trying to stoke anger in a sound bite for a clip, and I am sure he has already clipped it and put it on social media.
Let us talk about that $4 billion. The only impact the budget had as it relates to veterans services is that it said we were previously paying eight dollars and something per gram for medical cannabis, but since the market value of a gram of cannabis has gone down and is closer to six dollars, we will decrease the amount we distribute based on the market reduction in the cost. That is it.
The member was not here when Stephen Harper slashed veterans services and closed veterans offices. Those are the impacts of the Conservatives. With all due respect, I think it is really important that members try to talk about the realities and the full, real impacts, not just try to produce sound bites for their social media clips.
That brings us to the reality of what we are dealing with, and the reality is that this is a good budget.
I have a lot of friends, both on the left side and on the right side of the political spectrum. Some people have really surprised me, because they have traditionally been on the left side or on the right side but have been telling me, and this is just anecdotal, “Mark, I have never really voted Liberal before, but that is a really good budget, a budget that meets the moment and one that Canada needs right now.” That is why we see—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Mark Gerretsen: Mr. Speaker, they are laughing at that now, but if we just look at the comments that have been made, we see that they completely support that.
The reality is that we have one of the best economies in the world. Before I even bring up the IMF, I will say that I realize there are some people on the other side, on the alt-right side of the Conservative Party, who are going to say, “We cannot trust anything the IMF, the bogeyman, says. It is the the puppeteer for everything across the globe.”
However, the reality is that according to the IMF, for those of us who still believe in it as a legitimate organization that does incredible work in our world, Canada is well positioned amongst the G7 nations. Canada has the room to make targeted investments. The IMF states that Canada's financial systems are “strong and well-regulated”.
We have the ability to invest in our country. As a matter of fact, Canada shares a unique position with Germany among the G7; we share with Germany the highest possible credit rating a country can get, as indicated by the organizations that rank countries. Below us are Japan, the United States and every other country in the G7.
If we are experiencing some significant shifts in the global economy that are going to require us to change our approach and to depend on and look for more diversification in trade, and if we are going to genuinely start to use the resources we have in Canada to distribute them throughout the world, we have to make investments. It comes down to this: I cannot think of a better time to use that fiscal capacity than now.
My question to my Conservative colleagues would be this: If we have the fiscal capacity, can they please describe to me a better time in Canadian history, or a time they could perceive happening in the future, when we could possibly have used or could use the fiscal capacity we have now?
I have sat in the House and listened to what Conservatives have been saying today. I feel sorry for them because they are not able to support the budget despite the fact that so many of their constituents are in favour of it. Many of their constituents I have talked to have opinions on the budget and believe it is the right thing for Canada to do now.
We are at a crossroads, a time when we have to make important decisions about the future of our country. Canadians made their decision in April of this year when they said, “Actually, we think we will go with the guy who was a two-term central bank governor and the guy who, by the way, Stephen Harper himself credited for saving the economy in 2008, as opposed to going with the guy who was elected while he was literally still in university.” That is the the choice Canadians made. We have a choice to make now, moving forward, and we are on the right path with the budget.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands said he was listening to the debate. One of my colleagues asked the Liberal parliamentary secretary about why the budget includes $100 million to Huawei. She did not answer the question, so I am going to give the member the opportunity to explain why the old Liberal government banned Huawei from being used in our 5G security systems but now the current government is actually choosing to give $100 million to a company tied to the Chinese Communist regime.
Mr. Speaker, I have heard that question asked in the House, and to be completely honest, I do not have the exact answer to it.
What I will say is that the government is making targeted investments in our economy, in our country, at a time when we genuinely need them. We have to prepare ourselves for the economy of the future, an economy that is less reliant on the United States, and the budget is putting us on a path to be able to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the member's speech and the fact that he has actually paid attention to the debate going on today. What really struck me were the comments in regard to Canada's being a trading nation and the importance of opening up opportunities for Canadians and Canadian businesses.
I know that Canadians within the region of Waterloo want access to global markets. They not only want to be able to sell to the Government of Canada; they also want our solutions to be solutions for other economies around the world so Canadian jobs and Canadian communities can benefit.
I would love to hear the member's comments in regard to Canada's being a trading nation and how the Conservatives have changed their position on the importance of global trade.
Mr. Speaker, among G7 countries, we have the most trade agreements with other nations. We are best positioned, from a trade perspective, to benefit from a global economy. What we lack is infrastructure.
We have had the luxury of being so close to the United States, which has made for an easy trading relationship for decades. The reality is that is changing now. The United States is taking a different approach. Therefore we need to use this opportunity now, with the fiscal capacity we have, to build up ports of export and build up the infrastructure in Waterloo, in Kingston and in other parts of the country, to make sure we are prepared to be able to use our trade agreements and to trade globally.
Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia right now, all the salmon restoration enhancement programs are set to sunset in March. The fisheries are waiting to hear about renewal of funding. They cannot wait for the spring economic statement.
Will my colleague ensure that the government gets to the table and announces to British Columbians what the plan is when it comes to the restoration and protection of wild Pacific salmon?
Mr. Speaker, I do not have the answer to such a specific question, but I would encourage the member to engage with the minister and the parliamentary secretary to make sure his concerns are heard so that perhaps they can be addressed, whether through a policy change or through an amendment in the committee process. That would be the best way to have his concerns addressed.
Statements by Members
[Statements by Members]
[English]
Housing
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are living through a housing crisis. Families are being priced out of their neighbourhoods. Young people cannot imagine owning a home. Seniors are being pushed into impossible situations. This crisis is not abstract; it is urgent, it is national, and it is getting worse every single day.
When I was in Sudbury this week, I heard directly from local housing experts, who told me there are no shelter spaces, there is no affordable housing, children and the elderly are increasingly among those living on the streets, and the number of unhoused has skyrocketed in the last two years, with “people...dying faster than we are housing them”.
This is why I am calling on the Government of Canada to finally declare a national housing emergency and to act on it. That would actually unlock real tools, real coordination and real funding to deal with the challenge happening in our communities. The future of our communities and our country depend on it.
Celebrate Research Week
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to recognize the official launch of 2025's Celebrate Research Week, a growing national movement that proudly began in Brampton, Ontario. Led by the Osler Research Institute for Health Innovation and supported by local key partners, Celebrate Research Week is transforming how we understand the role of research in our country.
Research is a powerful driver of health, equity, economic growth and community well-being. It lives in the creativity of our students, the insights of our caregivers, the lived experiences of communities and the bold ideas of educators and entrepreneurs. Throughout this week, events are taking place across Ontario and Canada that elevate the visibility and impact of research in everyday life.
Today I ask all members to join me in congratulating the City of Brampton, the Osler Research Institute for Health Innovation and all participating institutions and communities across the province for their leadership.
Intimate Partner Violence
Mr. Speaker, next Monday, December 1, we will have the second hour of debate on my private member's bill, Bill C-225. The bill would address the scourge that is intimate partner violence. Thus far I have been very disappointed with the Liberals' response to such a bill, which is needed right here, right now.
In attendance, I anticipate and hope, will be some of Bailey McCourt's family members, who have asked that the proposed law be called Bailey's law. Debbie Henderson, for instance, Bailey's aunt, has been fighting non-stop to get the justice minister and the government to move on the issue. Not a day has gone by without her advocacy. I would like to thank the McCourt family for the honour of asking for the bill to be named Bailey's bill.
Let us not forget the other victim who was with Bailey, Carrie Wiebe, and Bailey's mother, Karen.
There is not one member of the House who should be voting against the bill. The Liberals need to vote for it on December 3.
Suborbital Space Launch
Mr. Speaker, we have liftoff in Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish. Last week in my riding, Maritime Launch Services conducted a suborbital space launch in Nova Scotia. This gravitational leap for our province and for Spaceport Nova Scotia brings us one step closer to achieving Canadian sovereign launch capability.
In our near future, it is expected that we will witness an orbital launch on the soil of Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish. This process will be groundbreaking for our local economy, our national sovereignty and security, and the future of the commercial space industry in Canada. Our region is growing, expanding and building. Nova Scotia is headed into new stratospheres.
I would like to celebrate this achievement of the suborbital launch, and I look forward to supporting the journey to space, often called “the final frontier”. I look forward to Canada's future and, as one famous Canadian once put it, “to boldly go where no man has gone before.”
Grande Prairie
Mr. Speaker, last Friday night the sirens sounded as firefighters and other first responders raced to the iconic Grand Prairie farmers' market in the heart of our city. Thankfully the market was closed for the day and no one was injured, but the flames rendered the building unusable.
This tragedy has come at the worst possible time. In the lead-up to Christmas, locals depend on the market for baking, gifts and other holiday goodies, and the makers, bakers, growers and crafters who sell their products depend on the Christmas sales to carry them throughout the rest of the year.
Our community will come together, because that is what it does. I am sure that, in time, the building will be rebuilt, but in the meantime our community will travel a bit farther to Evergreen Park to support the vendors, who desperately need our support.
We thank the city and county firefighters, including members who were off duty, who raced to the scene of the fire to put out the flames. I thank the market staff and the vendors for their resilience. I thank our community who will step up and support our Grand Prairie farmers' market as it seeks to serve us as it always has.
[Translation]
René Dallaire
Mr. Speaker, Canada and Quebec have lost a visionary and a pioneer. The late René Dallaire was a man of courage, energy and optimism.
An elite skier at 19, he became a quadriplegic after a brutal fall. With remarkable perseverance, he went on to earn his MBA, worked for 20 years as a chief financial officer and became the first Quebecker to use a head-controlled wheelchair. He was also active in several organizations that advocate for people with physical disabilities. In 1994, he founded the Association québécoise de voile adaptée and created the Coupe du Québec regatta, an event for sailors with physical disabilities.
René Dallaire inspired us to push our limits, whatever they may be. We extend our deepest condolences to his family and all those who had the great privilege of knowing him.
[English]
Nobel Prize Winners
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to represent Wellington—Halton Hills North.
The Canadians who live in the riding, in Wellington County, the town of Halton Hills and the city of Guelph, are truly exceptional. In the last seven years, three people from Guelph and Wellington County have received a Nobel Prize. Donna Strickland received a joint Nobel Prize in physics, and David Card and Peter Howitt separately received joint Nobel Prizes in economics. This global excellence coming from Guelph and Wellington County, a community of some 200,000 Canadians, is extraordinary.
What was it about the Guelph and Wellington County of the 1960s and 1970s, when these extraordinary Canadians came of age, that produced such global excellence? Whatever it was, Canada needs more of it.
Congratulations to all three of these extraordinary Canadians.
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to speak about our charter, which was born 43 years ago. Canadians have had confidence that their federal government will respect their charter-guaranteed rights. The Leader of the Opposition has now admitted that he would be the first to breach that trust. He would walk over our charter rights. He is telling us exactly who he is.
By contrast, our government remains committed to protecting these rights and freedoms, because Canadians expect all orders of government to abide by the charter, not limit it. We are the party of the charter, and we will always do our job to consistently defend it.
Firearms
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's gun confiscation scheme has been a failure from the start. Its Cape Breton pilot reportedly collected just 22 guns, yet the government continues to hold back the official results. It is likely because this dismal result is true. Now the Liberals want to roll this broken program out nationally, including in southern Alberta.
To make things even worse, the police chief overseeing the pilot, the brother-in-law of a Liberal MP, has suddenly announced his retirement just as scrutiny intensifies. Meanwhile, the other member from Cape Breton shrugged off the failures, claiming he has not heard anything and people are not talking about it. Maybe the member should pay more attention to the concerns of his residents instead of breaking the Elections Act. Even the minister admitted, in leaked audio, that the program did not work.
This wasteful $750-million Liberal vanity project will not stop violent crime. The Liberals should scrap this program.
[Translation]
Louis Riel
Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1885, Manitoba's founder, Louis Riel, a Red River Métis and a brother to Quebec, was hanged.
Unlike English Canadians, Quebeckers have always seen him as a hero who took a stand for the French language and for his people. Like the Patriots of Quebec, he suffered the same fate that Canada reserved for anyone who opposed its power: the gallows.
The men and women of Quebec gathered at Champ-de-Mars in Montreal to voice their discontent. This mass rally demonstrated the deep ties between the Métis people and Quebec.
We have never forgotten Louis Riel. He still appears in our history books as the hero of a larger-than-life movement. We know and have not forgotten what Canada and its prime minister did back then.
Yes, the dogs in Quebec barked in his favour. I am one of those dogs, and I will keep barking until Louis Riel and the Red River Métis get justice. That will take immediate acts of recognition.
[English]
4-H Canada
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to and recognize the contribution of 4-H Canada in our communities across this beautiful country, including in my community of Kings—Hants.
This past weekend, I had the opportunity to join the Hants County 4-H for its celebration of the achievements of members all across the county. Let me say what a tremendous representation it is of a program that is community-led and gives our youth the skills that, of course, support agriculture, but serve in a whole host of capacities for their future careers.
I specifically want to recognize a number of individuals who competed at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. This is a prominent event in the country. Henry Smethurst had the Canadian Ayrshire champion in the dairy classic, and Brianna Partridge had the reserve champion. I also want to recognize Emma Crowell and Evan Collins, who represented team Nova Scotia in the beef competition. They are an an example of Kings—Hants competing on the national stage.
Congratulations to all 4-H members.
Cost of Food
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation that feeds the world, yet more and more families cannot afford to feed themselves. That contradiction should trouble every person in this chamber, because food inflation is not an accident of global forces; it is the direct result of decisions made by the Liberal government. Under the Liberals, food prices have risen nearly 40% faster in Canada than they have in the United States. In just one year, the cost of beef has risen 16%, carrots are up 11%, the cost of coffee has gone up a staggering 34% and even the cost of baby formula has risen 6%.
At the very moment when Canadians needed relief, the Liberals chose to hike the industrial carbon tax, increasing the cost of food, fertilizer, fuel, transportation and farm equipment. The result was higher bills at the checkout and rising anxiety at the kitchen table.
The most expensive government in Canadian history has delivered the most expensive groceries in Canadian history. Canadians are demanding a government that makes life more affordable, and only Conservatives will deliver on that.
International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women
Mr. Speaker, today, on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, our government is clear: Violence against women must end. Too many women still live in fear and too many children grow up in homes marked by abuse. This is unacceptable
In Port Moody—Coquitlam, I thank Tri-City Transitions, the Soroptimist's warm place for women and SHARE Family & Community Services. They are lifelines. They offer shelter, support and hope.
To the women who bravely step forward and to those who walk beside them, we honour their courage. Our government is investing $224 million over five years to prevent gender-based violence and expand survivor supports. We will not stop until every woman can live free from violence.
Prime Minister of Canada
Mr. Speaker, hard-working Canadians are struggling, lining up at food banks and paying eye-wateringly high Liberal taxes. Do members know who is not struggling? The Prime Minister, his corporate elite buddies and Brookfield are not.
As Canada's number one tax-dodger, Brookfield has avoided paying $6.5 billion in taxes. That is enough to buy a week's worth of groceries for every single Canadian. In case Brookfield's tax-dodging was not enough, now the Prime Minister is handing it Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned money. We learned that the European Space Agency received a $500-million contract. What was hidden was that 50% of the Harwell campus, where the European Space Agency is located, is owned by Brookfield.
The out-of-touch Prime Minister's record is to ship jobs out of the country and chase away investment. Canadians deserve a Prime Minister who puts Canada and Canadians first, not his corporate buddies.
Canada-Taiwan Relations
Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Canada-Taiwan Friendship Group, I am honoured to rise today and welcome to the Hill the president of the Taiwanese Chambers of Commerce of North America. Delegates have come from across the continent in the spirit of new opportunities and stronger trade.
This week, I have the privilege of hosting two important events: a parliamentary discussion on Canada-Taiwan relations and the vibrant celebration of Taiwan Night 2025, celebrating the strong and growing ties between Canada and Taiwan that are rooted in shared democracy, values, mutual respect and a commitment to economic co-operation.
Like Canada, Taiwan is a dynamic and innovative partner. By expanding trade, investment and cultural exchange, we strengthen supply chains, foster prosperity and build bridges that transcend borders and oceans.
I thank our guests for this dedication and look forward to seeing everyone tonight at Taiwan Night 2025.
Prime Minister of Canada
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister positioned himself as the so-called man with a plan to save Canada from Mr. Trump. He promised he would deliver a trade deal by July 21, but he failed to deliver on that promise. As a result, Canada is losing thousands of manufacturing jobs.
Breaking his promise has real consequences. Businesses are packing up and leaving Canada for greener pastures in the U.S., where there is tariff relief, lower taxes and less regulation. The Prime Minister is treating this issue as if it is irrelevant. He said, “Who cares?” about the negotiations breaking down, and said he does not have “a burning issue to speak with the president about right now”. It is outrageous that the Prime Minister of this country would say that.
Thousands of jobs in steel, autos, forestry and countless other industries are bleeding, and Canada is on the precipice of losing tens of thousands of good-paying Canadian jobs. Who cares? Conservatives care. We are the only ones who will deliver a Canada that is the best place to build and to hire Canadian workers. Only Conservatives will deliver on that promise.
Arts and Culture Sector
Mr. Speaker, last month, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce's business data lab, commissioned by Business/Arts in partnership with the Canada Council for the Arts, released a report confirming that the arts are far more than cultural expression; they are a key economic driver. In 2024, the sector generated $65 billion in GDP, nearly $130 billion in total economic impact and over $7 billion in tax revenue that helps support essential public services.
We often talk about physical infrastructure, but cultural infrastructure, like the arts, is what connects us as a country. This is where identity takes shape and where Canadians are reflected. Our government recognizes this, which is why budget 2025 would make important investments in arts and culture and help Canadian creators share their stories at home and around the world.
This evening, I invite all members to attend the Canada's Live Performing Arts Industries Reception reception with industry leaders and artists, and a very special performance by iconic Canadian musician Alan Doyle.
Oral Questions
[Oral Questions]
[Translation]
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, in his 28 trips, the Prime Minister has failed to reduce a single foreign tariff imposed on Canadians, but he has made gains for Brookfield. A few days after the Prime Minister's meeting with President Trump, the President signed an agreement to buy 80 billion dollars' worth of nuclear products from Brookfield. The Prime Minister is now spending $500 million on Europe's space program, which is located on Brookfield's campus.
Every time the Prime Minister travels, Canadians get poorer and Brookfield, his company, gets richer. Why?
Mr. Speaker, as usual, the Leader of the Opposition needs to check his numbers. The Indonesian government is reducing tariffs on 95% of Canadian goods and services. What is more, the government of the United Arab Emirates is going to invest $70 billion in our country.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister was elected, promising to negotiate a win with the U.S., American tariffs on autos, aluminum and steel have doubled, and on Canadian lumber, they have tripled. Not a single American tariff has been reduced since he promised he would reduce them. Now he says, “Who cares?”
I care about the 3,000 auto workers that I met on the picket line in Brampton who are out of a job. I care about the eight mills that have closed because the Prime Minister failed to deliver a deal. The workers on those lines, they care. Canadians care.
Why does the Prime Minister not care?
Mr. Speaker, since I became Prime Minister, Canada has secured the lowest tariffs of any country in the world. On 85% of our goods, the tariffs are zero. Yes, there are sectors, the auto sector, the steel sector, the lumber sector and the aluminum sector, that are under pressure.
We care. We are acting in those sectors. There will be announcements this week of further support.
Prime Minister of Canada
Mr. Speaker, before the election, the Prime Minister promised elbows up. After, it was, “Who cares?”
Before the election, the Prime Minister said the tariffs were an existential crisis. Now he says they are not a burning issue. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win. After, he backed down to American tariffs. Those tariffs have now doubled on Canadian aluminum, autos and steel and tripled on Canadian lumber. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised the fastest-growing economy in the G7. After, he delivered the fastest-shrinking economy.
Why is the Prime Minister before the election so different from the one after?
Mr. Speaker, on the night of the election, when I had the great honour from my constituents of being elected as a deputy of this House, unlike some others in the Chamber today, I made a promise to Canadians.
When I make a mistake, I will admit it. That was a poor choice of words about a serious issue, and the serious issue is the progress we are making structurally: the best deal in the world, the strongest budget in the world and the most new trade deals in the world.
International Trade
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did make a mistake. He has made many mistakes. In fact, it has been nothing but mistakes when it comes to trade. Let us look at it.
The Prime Minister promised that he would negotiate a win on softwood lumber. Now he says, “Who cares?” Well, Conservatives care. Within 80 days of former prime minister Stephen Harper taking office, he managed to eliminate American tariffs on softwood lumber and get refunds for them. The current Prime Minister has now had eight months, and those tariffs have now more than tripled.
The Prime Minister asks, “Who cares?” I can say, on behalf of all the MPs on this side, we care about the jobs that are being lost in lumber towns. Why does he not?
Mr. Speaker, this government cares about creating jobs in this country. That is why we proposed a budget before this House that catalyzes $1 trillion of investment over five years.
The member opposite and his colleagues, those who could make it into the room, voted against that budget, voted against Canadian workers and voted against Canada's future. We believe in this country, and we are building it strong.
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, while Chinese, American, Indian and other tariffs have only gone up since the Prime Minister began his 28-trip journey around the world, he has not had a single, solitary win. In fact, the only wins he has had are for Brookfield. Just days after he met with the President, Trump signed on to $80 billion of nuclear purchases from Brookfield, and then he gave $500 million of our tax money to the European Space Agency, located on Brookfield's campus.
Why is it that whenever the Prime Minister spends his time and our money, Canadians end up poorer and he and Brookfield end up richer?
Mr. Speaker, not for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition needs to check his numbers. The government of Indonesia is reducing tariffs on 95% of Canadian goods. Canada has the best deal with the United States; 85% of our goods are tariff-free. The United Arab Emirates has just confirmed that they want to invest $70 billion in this country. They believe in Canada's future. Why do the members opposite not?
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister arrived just a few days after Brookfield's CEO, lining up with the same interests that are not Canadian interests.
Speaking of Canadian interests, the Prime Minister opposed the pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific, just as his Liberal predecessor blocked that same pipeline. On Thursday, he will make one of his grand announcements, waving around a meaningless so-called memorandum of understanding. If it is anything other than a public relations ploy, why will he not say on what date the construction will begin on a pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific?
Mr. Speaker, sometimes the question reveals everything. The memorandum of understanding that we are negotiating with Alberta creates necessary conditions, but not sufficient conditions, because we believe in co-operative federalism. We believe the government of British Columbia has to agree. We believe that first nations right-holders in this country have to agree and support all stakeholders after that. That is one Canada.
[Translation]
Intergovernmental Relations
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are cheaters. We knew it in 1995, and now we have proof.
The then immigration minister has confirmed that Jean Chrétien asked him to fast-track citizenship applications for as many people as possible so that they could vote in the referendum. The Liberals are admitting that they used immigration to rig the vote.
Last month, Jean Chrétien also admitted to all the dirty tricks he was prepared to use if the “yes” side won, in order to avoid recognizing the democratic votes of Quebeckers. The Liberals are cheaters.
If Quebeckers hold another referendum, will the Liberals cheat again?
Mr. Speaker, we respect the votes of Quebeckers, who elected 45 Liberal members to this chamber.
While the Bloc Québécois tries to stir up trouble, Quebec's Liberal MPs and the Government of Canada are working to build this great country.
Mr. Speaker, again, the Liberals rigged the referendum.
The “yes” side acted democratically. The proof is in the noble way Quebeckers accepted the results in 1995, believing that democracy had spoken, even though that democracy was tainted by the Liberals.
The Liberals rigged the results and Jean Chrétien would have gone even further if the “yes” side had won to prevent Quebeckers' votes from being recognized.
With a third referendum looming, will federalists finally engage in democratic debate instead of relying on cheating and fearmongering?
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, people are waiting for years to get their citizenship, while Ottawa drags out the process, dithers, twiddles its thumbs and sits on its backside. We know what the Liberal solution is. All it would take for Ottawa to finally get moving is a referendum in Quebec. Imagine how the conversation would go. If people want their file to be processed faster, they would be instructed to vote no, out of gratitude to the great Canadian government.
How is it that Canada's immigration system never seems to work, except when it is time to hurt Quebec?
[English]
Intergovernmental Affairs
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has apparently not read our Constitution, which indicates that the federal government alone has jurisdiction over pipelines that cross borders. Let me quote subsection 92(10), which says that federal jurisdiction applies to “Works and Undertakings connecting the Province with any other...or extending beyond the Limits of the Province”.
In other words, it is exclusively the federal government's decision whether to approve a pipeline. It was the federal government that blocked the last pipeline.
Can he confirm once and for all, is he deciding, unilaterally, to give veto to the NDP B.C. premier, to block a project that Canada needs?
Mr. Speaker, last week, we talked about that big, long, giant pipeline of hot air that animated the country for 10 years during the government of which that member was a member. Not a single millilitre of oil reached tidewater under the Harper era. Under the Liberal government, oil exports have increased. Oil exports to tidewater, thanks to the purchase of the Trans Mountain pipeline, have increased.
Canada is a conventional and renewable energy superpower, and that will continue.
Mr. Speaker, it really is embarrassing that a Prime Minister who claimed that he was the man with the plan cannot even stand up and debate me about pipelines on the floor of the House of Commons. He is afraid. The previous Conservative government approved a pipeline to tidewater, the Northern Gateway pipeline, which the Liberals then defeated and destroyed, giving massive power to the Americans to monopolize our oil.
Will the Prime Minister, who promised to act with unimaginable speed eight months ago, finally stand up for Canadian workers and confirm that he will approve a pipe—
Mr. Speaker, our government fully understands that the ultimate jurisdiction for interprovincial pipelines rests with the federal government. At the same time, our government has been clear that we expect a proponent for a major project, for it to be designated, to work with the impacted jurisdictions and with first nations.
They do not understand that.
The Premier of Alberta understands that. They want to work with us.
Mr. Speaker, it really is pathetic that the Prime Minister cannot stand in his place and defend his position. He is afraid to defend the fact that on Thursday, he will not sign on to a new pipeline. He will sign on to a public relations stunt while planning to hide behind the Premier of B.C. and abdicate his unique constitutional responsibilities.
If he wanted a pipeline, if he no longer believed in the keep-it-in-the-ground extremist ideology he supported for 10 years, he would stand up today and say that he will approve a pipe to the Pacific.
Will he—
Excuse me.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: I'm waiting for it to get a little quieter.
The hon. Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand how to get a pipeline built. The Premier of Alberta does. It is by working with the government to build Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, the question was for the Prime Minister. He is here in Ottawa today. He has the ability to stand up and state his position. He claimed that he was going to act with unimaginable speed. Here we are, eight months later, and he refuses to state whether he even supports a new oil pipeline and whether he would like to continue to pump oil at a discount to the United States of America while Canadians pay the price.
What does it take to get a pipeline approved by the Prime Minister? Does it have to be a Brookfield pipeline?
Mr. Speaker, on natural resources projects and interprovincial resource projects, there are indeed a great deal of those. The federal government has a unique role and must ensure that our obligations to first nations, to other provinces, to communities and to consulting are present and that those conditions are met, and then we are able to proceed. The Leader of the Opposition, now that he is standing right there, may want to stand up and say what part of that process he would not respect.
Mr. Speaker, I do not respect the idea of standing in the way of Canadian energy workers and giving our oil to the Americans at a discount. What we would do is get the government out of the way and get the project built. The Prime Minister has the unique constitutional opportunity to do that. Subsection 92.10 of the BNA Act makes it exclusively a federal decision.
This Prime Minister is hiding under his desk rather than answering the question. Eight months after promising that he would take unprecedented action with unimaginable speed, he has done nothing. Why does he not get out of the way?
Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. We have dozens of major projects in play and under study, and we are building the country at unimaginable speed. We are creating opportunities for energy workers, young people, housing, steel, lumber, aluminum and autos in this country. That is what we are doing.
What is shocking is that the Leader of the Opposition stands in his place and somehow pretends in his whole fake way that he is going to override and steamroll the rights of Canadians who have a right to have a say in these projects. We are going to give them a say. He will not.
Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister hides under his desk, he puts up his House leader to rant and rave and pump his fists in the air.
The Prime Minister said that we faced an existential crisis requiring that we act with unimaginable speed, and here we are, eight months later, and he does not even have the courage to tell Canadians whether he supports a pipeline that would allow us to go around the American monopoly of our energy and get our product to the world.
Will he finally stand up for workers, stand up in this House and answer the question: a pipeline or a pipe dream?
Mr. Speaker, speaking of ranting and raving, I asked the Leader of the Opposition yesterday about two significant things that were said by members of his caucus last week. Number one, the member for Calgary Midnapore suggested that the Prime Minister was disloyal to Canada. Second, the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies repeated MAGA claims that immigrants were the cause of economic slowdown in Canada.
The Leader of the Opposition should stand in his place right now and apologize for those comments, take those members to task and do something for once.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Speaker, it is not us who questioned the loyalty of the Prime Minister. He is the one who is blocking a pipeline that would allow Canada to become energy-independent and reach markets outside of Canada, while he and his company invest in pipelines in the Middle East and Latin America. He is the one who forces Canadians to spend more on taxes than on food, clothing and shelter combined, while he stashes his cash in a Bermuda tax haven above a bicycle shop.
If he wants to say that he is Canada first, why does he not stand up in this House and start acting like it?
Mr. Speaker, Canada's Building Trades Unions, the Canadian Labour Congress and LiUNA are all unions that have praised budget 2025. Do members know why? It is because it makes historic investments in the major infrastructure projects that are going to create great jobs all across this country.
Whether it is on supporting Canadians through things like the Canada child benefit, indexing it to inflation; by creating jobs; or by helping people get the skills to do them, the Conservatives vote against Canadians every single time. Canadians know better.
[Translation]
Climate Change
Mr. Speaker, it is official: Canada is giving up the fight against climate change. The Prime Minister will announce it on Thursday by launching a brand new pipeline for dirty oil from western Canada, on top of Trans Mountain, which has cost taxpayers $34 billion and which will cost us even more in climate disruptions. Thanks to Bill C-5 and Bill C-15, this new pipeline will be exempt from environmental assessments and laws—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Just a moment. Even though the member is a bit far away, I do have speakers. However, even with the speakers, I could not hear him.
I invite the hon. member for Repentigny to start again from the beginning.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Prime Minister wants to hear this.
It is official: Canada is giving up the fight against climate change. On Thursday, the Liberals are going to announce a new pipeline for dirty oil from western Canada, on top of Trans Mountain, which has cost taxpayers $34 billion and which will cost us even more in climate disruptions. It is a dark day, as dark as the dirty oil that the Liberals are rolling in.
Do they still believe in clean energy at all? They clearly do not.
Mr. Speaker, I have said it before and I will say it again: Our government is committed to fighting climate change every day.
However, if my colleague wants to talk about major projects, I would love to talk about the Iqaluit hydroelectric project, which will help provide northern communities with clean energy. It is important for health and for the environment. We could also talk about high-speed rail, which will be important for our communities.
We are getting the job done, and we are going to fight climate change every single day.
Mr. Speaker, on May 14, the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture said that now is not the time to build pipelines.
Well, his party thinks anytime is the right time to build pipelines. First came Trans Mountain, and now the Liberals are announcing a second pipeline to transport dirty oil from the west. We remember the Harper years as a dark time for the environment, but even Stephen Harper did not approve a single pipeline. The Liberals, including the Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture, will have approved two.
Why is he still sitting over there?
Mr. Speaker, it is impressive to hear what the Bloc Québécois members have to say today, despite our generational budget that invests in infrastructure, that invests in national corridors and that will make clean energy projects possible across the country. If I were a member of the Bloc Québécois today, I would be standing up to applaud budget 2025.
They went and hid on budget day. They will have to explain to Quebeckers why they are voting against green projects across the country. On this side of the House, we will always be there to build a strong Canada.
Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to arbitrarily grant citizenship to whoever they want, just like they did 30 years ago. That is right. In Bill C‑12 the Liberals want to give themselves the power to change temporary residents' visas to give them permanent residency.
The Liberals will be able to “cancel or vary documents, including permanent resident visas, permanent resident cards, temporary resident visas, electronic travel authorizations, temporary resident permits, work permits or study permits”.
The Liberals want to speed up access to citizenship. Are they doing that in the interest of Canada or in the interest of the Liberal Party?
Steel and Aluminum Industry
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister will read her own bill so that she understands what she is doing.
That said, at the G20 summit last weekend, when the Prime Minister was asked whether he intended to speak with the U.S. President, he replied, “Who cares?”
We also learned from Brookfield's chief operating officer, who testified before a parliamentary committee, that 95% of the companies owned by Brookfield are not subject to the Prime Minister's ethics review. This means that the Prime Minister will personally benefit from at least 1,900 profitable companies. We now understand why he could not care less about the 38,000 employees in Quebec's aluminum sector.
Is—
Mr. Speaker, it is rather surprising that this experienced member continues to repeat these baseless, empty and completely untrue allegations. He knows full well that we have one of the strictest ethics codes in the world. The Prime Minister follows that code rigorously, and he will continue to do so.
[English]
Automotive Industry
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on a promise to negotiate a win, a good deal with the United States, but when asked about it on the weekend, he said, “Who cares?...it's a detail”, and that he would speak with the President when it matters, going from negotiating a win to “Who cares?” in a matter of months.
Who cares about our most important trading relationship? Canadians care. Ontario's auto industry is more than just a detail. It matters to the thousands of workers in the York and Durham regions, and it matters now.
Will the Prime Minister explain to Ontario's auto workers why he said, “Who cares?”
Mr. Speaker, as we said yesterday, just because our colleagues keeps repeating the same inaccurate phrase, that does not make it real.
The Prime Minister has said that our government will always stand up for workers in the auto sector, in the steel sector, in the aluminum sector and in the forestry sector. Unlike the Conservatives, our government is not going to sign just any old deal. We are going to sign a deal that is in the interests of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy, and we are going to continue to support those sectors as we go through these difficult times.
Forestry Industry
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister proclaimed himself the so-called master negotiator when it came to dealing with the Americans. He promised to negotiate a win by July 21. Now months after failing to do so, he says, “Who cares?” Well, I can tell members who cares. Conservatives care, and the sawmill workers in Ear Falls, hundreds of whom have lost their jobs, care.
Will the Prime Minister look at those workers and tell them “Who cares?”
Mr. Speaker, we care about the forestry industry. That is why we announced $1.2 billion in support for the industry. That is why we are meeting almost every day with the industry, as recently as last night.
We have good news for the opposition: There will be new supports coming this week for the forestry product sector.
Steel and Aluminum Industry
Mr. Speaker, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister said he would be elbows up when dealing with the existential crisis of Trump's tariffs. Now months after failing to negotiate a win, he is saying, “Who cares?” Well, I will tell members who cares. Conservatives care, and so do the 1,200 steelworkers at Interpro Pipe and Steel in Regina, whose jobs are under threat because of this trade war.
How can the Prime Minister look the 1,200 steelworkers at Interpro Pipe and Steel in the eyes and tell them “Who cares?”
Mr. Speaker, again, our colleagues keep repeating phrases that they know are not accurate. What is accurate is that our government has always supported the hard-working women and men who work in our steel sector in every corner of the country.
We have put in place unprecedented support measures. We are prepared to continue to do more. The Prime Minister met with industry leaders in this sector last week. We will always stand up for the hard-working women and men in our steel sector and in other sectors of the Canadian economy.
Foreign Affairs
Mr. Speaker, Canadians want to see real results, including new jobs, new opportunities and growth that supports families, businesses and communities like mine in Milton and Georgetown. This past week, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs were in the U.A.E. and South Africa making deals, securing those opportunities and showcasing the best of what Canada has to offer.
Could the Minister of Foreign Affairs update the House on how Canada is leveraging our strengths to deliver real benefits to Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, everywhere I go, people say they want more Canada. Last week, the Prime Minister confirmed the largest foreign investment commitment in Canadian history at $70 billion. In addition, we have launched trade negotiations with India for a comprehensive economic partnership agreement. We are building the strongest economy in the G7 by unlocking generational investments.
[Translation]
Long live Canada.
[English]
Grocery Industry
Mr. Speaker, three years ago, the finance minister promised Canadians he would stabilize food prices by Thanksgiving. Three pumpkin pies have come and gone, and food inflation is 50% higher than target. What could possibly have gone wrong when the finance minister promised that tools, such as the grocery code of conduct, would lower grocery prices?
Every single expert at the agriculture committee, including the president of the grocery code, said that it was never designed to lower food prices, so will the Minister of Finance please stand to explain to Canadians why he promised the code would lower food prices when he knew it would do no such thing?
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about something other than imaginary taxes, shall we?
While the Conservatives hammer away on taxes that are not real, we are actually helping Canadians with the cost of living. Every year, for example, the Canada child benefit and old age security are indexed to inflation, and what happens every year? Every year, these Conservatives vote against the increases that actually help Canadians keep up with the price of living. Finally, let me quote the food professor Sylvain Charlebois. He said, “Every year, when we write ‘Canada's Food Price Report’, climate change is the number one [wild card] factor.”
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that food prices are rising because the Liberal government is the most expensive in Canadian history. Every time the Prime Minister sticks his hand in the pockets of Canadians, he drives up the price of everything. We are seeing that the Liberals' own imaginary taxes, such as the fuel tax and an increase to the industrial carbon tax, are making everything more expensive and driving up the cost to grow the food, move the food and buy the food. This is at a time when food inflation in Canada is 40% higher than it is in the United States.
Why is the Prime Minister so intent on forcing Canadians to food banks by increasing his taxes on food and fuel?
Mr. Speaker, if that leader, that member and that party actually cared about making life more affordable for Canadians, they would not have voted against automatic federal benefits, which would get 5.5 million Canadians benefits that otherwise would be left unclaimed. These are benefits such as the Canada child benefit, the disability tax credit and the Canada workers' benefit.
The only thing that leader cares about is keeping his job, keeping his dismal poll numbers and quashing a caucus revolt. We care about Canadians, and we will deliver for Canadians.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that families across the country are struggling to afford even the most basic necessities. Under the Liberal government, many Canadians have been stripped of the basic dignity of being able to provide for themselves. Since 2017, for example, the price of baby formula has gone up by 84%, leaving parents so desperate that it is now the number one item taken from grocery store shelves.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Children and Youth suggested that hungry infants should enrol in the Liberal school food program, so I am just curious, do Liberals understand that babies do not go to school?
Mr. Speaker, we all want the best solution to drive down the price of food, and that is why we are working on real facts. My colleague mentioned the agriculture committee. Let me quote the VP of Costco and other grocers, who said, when asked what drives the price of food, that the first item is the commodity itself. With a bad crop, the price goes up; with a good crop, the price goes down. It has nothing to do with any policy.
We want solutions. To drive down the price of food, we have to support our farmers with climate resilience.
Mr. Speaker, I guess the answer is yes. Liberals believe babies should just enrol in the school food program that they offer.
It is ludicrous that the Liberals are referring hungry babies to a school food program. It is outrageous that, in a country like Canada, parents are having to make a decision between paying their bills and being able to afford the basic necessities of life for a baby. This is literally life and death, and these Liberals stand over there and shrug their shoulders.
When will the Prime Minister stop his inflationary spending and make life affordable for Canadians again?
Mr. Speaker, I think we understand that any parent struggling to feed their child is one parent too many. My colleague opposite knows that Canada has historically relied on imports of baby formula, which means Canadians have been impacted by external pressures. As a country, we do have to move from reliance to resilience, and I would also point out that the Canada child benefit, which members opposite continue to vote against in budget after budget, puts up to $8,000 tax-free in the pockets of parents. This will help with the cost of baby formula.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government is the most costly in Canadian history. Every dollar spent by the Prime Minister comes straight out of Canadians' pockets.
The government allowed the National Research Council of Canada to spend more than $60,000 in public money on patio furniture. Meanwhile, people are struggling to put food on the table. Everyone likes to enjoy the sunshine, but this is not something the government should be doing on the taxpayers' dime.
When will this Liberal government stop throwing money around?
Mr. Speaker, all government organizations are expected to strictly follow the procurement process we have outlined. That is why our government is conducting a comprehensive review of potential savings within the government.
Furthermore, we know that the National Research Council of Canada does very important work for Canada's economic growth.
Mr. Speaker, food prices have increased almost 40% faster in Canada than in the United States. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who the Liberals want to fire in the coming days, hidden taxes will drive up the cost of gas by as much as 17¢ a litre. The Liberals had an opportunity to lower the cost of food for Canadian households.
Why is the Prime Minister maintaining a hidden 17¢-a-litre tax on fuel that only makes food more expensive?
Mr. Speaker, we are looking for solutions to lower the price of food. Real solutions are based on real facts.
Last week, the vice-president of Costco appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He said that climate change is the cause of food inflation. When the harvest is good, prices are lower. When the harvest is not good because of climate change, food gets expensive.
Our government is working on real solutions.
[English]
Carbon Pricing
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is the most expensive in Canadian history. A father in Newmarket, who is an engineer, said to me that they cannot cover the living costs. He can only pay for the mortgage, utilities and taxes. Food, transportation and insurance are out of pocket.
While Canadians struggle, the Liberals keep a punishing fuel tax that adds up to 17¢ more per litre at the pumps, hiking the costs of parents driving to work, of the farmers and of the truckers who bring the food to our shelves.
Why is the Prime Minister clinging to this fuel tax and doubling down on reckless inflationary spending?
Mr. Speaker, instead of the members opposite focusing on fake taxes, they should support things that actually put a few extra bucks in the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
As a former single mother and a person who lived paycheque to paycheque for most of my life, I can tell the House that what helps parents, what helps families, is having money in their pockets. When we index things such as the Canada child benefit to inflation, that puts money in the pockets of Canadians. They can then use it to buy the things they need. It is pretty simple, but it is really hard for these Conservatives to understand.
The Economy
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals say the cost pressures on Canadians are fake. I have another note from someone else in Newmarket who said that, as the cost of living increases and their salaries do not, they are being driven into poverty. Four out of five Canadians list food as their number one worry when paying their bills. Statistics Canada confirms that beef is up 17%, baby formula is up 6% and coffee up 34%.
This is not fake. They should knock on some doors and get a reality check from the people they claim to represent. The Liberals dismiss the struggles of Canadians, but I ask why?
Mr. Speaker, it really seems to me like the member opposite missed her chance to vote for a tax cut to benefit 22 million Canadians, including constituents in her riding.
The member spoke about engineers. Just this morning, I met with the International Union of Operating Engineers. There are 18,000 here in Ontario. We talked about the importance of early learning and child care, because they need that not only to recruit and train new engineers but also to benefit the families who depend on it for affordable child care so they can go to work.
Natural Resources
Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that the government is considering lifting the tanker ban to support an east-west oil pipeline. The problem is that some Liberal MPs, and even cabinet ministers, do not support this proposal.
Who speaks for the government? Will the minister finally clear it up today whether the government is going to do what Conservatives have called for all along to scrap the emissions cap and lift the tanker ban so that Canadian resources can get to market?
Mr. Speaker, we are going to do what we need to do, which is build Canada strong.
The Prime Minister has been clear: Major projects will only proceed with rigorous environmental assessments and clear contributions to Canada's climate change objectives.
[Translation]
Women and Gender Equality
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow is Economic Abuse Awareness Day, a Canadian initiative that is now observed worldwide.
Economic abuse, such as restricting access to money, sabotaging employment or forcing debt, is a common form of gender-based violence. It robs people of their independence and limits their ability to build secure and fulfilling lives.
I am proud to have voted for a budget that introduces measures to combat economic abuse. Could the Minister of Finance remind those who voted against the budget what they opposed?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question and for her leadership on this issue. Preventing economic abuse means ensuring access to information and financial resources.
The good news is that even the Conservatives should have been pleased. In the 2025 budget, we announced our plan to develop a voluntary code of conduct for the prevention of economic abuse. We will work with the Canadian financial sector to detect signs of economic abuse early.
Unfortunately, we saw some members vote against the budget in the House, when we should all be united against economic abuse.
[English]
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, Canadians need to know that every decision the Prime Minister makes is in the national interest and not in his own financial interest.
Yesterday at committee, Brookfield confirmed that, every time Brookfield makes money, the Prime Minister makes money, and that the 1,900 companies that Brookfield owns are not covered by the Prime Minister's ethics screen. Every time the Prime Minister goes down to the White House, he does not come back with a deal for Canadians, but the last time he went, he did get an $80-billion deal for Brookfield.
Will the Prime Minister just give Canadians the confidence they deserve and sell his financial interest in Brookfield?
Mr. Speaker, the opposition should stop the conspiracy theories. They should get out more, stop saying no and find out who is saying yes to Canada.
They do not even have to go far. Just this morning, I was in Kanata where Nokia said yes to Canada and the Ottawa-Gatineau area. They broke ground on a $340-million innovation centre. They employ 2,600 Canadians. They will employ 340 more.
The opposition should do what Nokia does: build in Canada, buy in Canada, believe in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it must be concerning for the minister that the Clerk of the Privy Council believed in the same conspiracy so much that he sold his shares in Brookfield knowing that he could not manage the conflict of interest in the role that he had, which is the same conflict that the Prime Minister has, and he is supposed to be managing the Prime Minister's conflicts.
Every time Brookfield makes money, the Prime Minister is making money. Even the chief operating officer of Brookfield itself admits this very thing. With 1,900 companies that Brookfield owns not being covered by the Prime Minister's ethics screen, why will he not just do the thing that Canadians need, give them the confidence they deserve and sell his shares in Brookfield?
Mr. Speaker, speaking of deals, last week it was Germany investing $1 billion in Canadian defence technology. A few days ago, it was the president of the United Arab Emirates securing $70 billion for our industries here, and just today in Ottawa, Finnish Nokia is investing $340 million, supporting thousands of jobs and exporting to over 115 countries.
The world is calling, and we are answering.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's conflicts with Brookfield are everywhere. Yesterday the COO of Brookfield said that when Brookfield does well, the Prime Minister does well, so is it any wonder that the government is helping Brookfield do well, including fast-tracking a Brookfield-owned LNG project and handing half a billion dollars to a foreign space agency partnered with Brookfield?
Why will the Prime Minister not end his conflicts and fully divest himself from Brookfield?
Mr. Speaker, conspiracy theories and imaginary taxes are both different ways to say no to Canada.
The Liberal Party is a party that says yes. Guess what: Just today, Nokia said yes to Canada. It invested $340 million in an innovation campus. That means good jobs: 2,600 jobs in Canada, with 340 more good jobs. Nokia broke ground today because it is building in Canada, buying in Canada and believing in Canada.
Housing
Mr. Speaker, on November 12, the Build Canada Homes program accelerated affordable housing projects across the country, including a major announcement at Naawi-Oodena in Winnipeg. Approximately 320 new homes, 40% of them below market and developed in partnership with Treaty 1 first nations, are now set to move forward. This is exactly the kind of progress my constituents in Winnipeg West are looking for.
Could the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure update the House on how the Build Canada Homes projects in Winnipeg and other cities will help deliver affordable homes more quickly?
Mr. Speaker, our government is making generational investments in building the homes that Canadians need right now, and this month, Build Canada Homes took a major step in the redevelopment of sites for accelerating affordable housing in Winnipeg, in Ottawa and in Edmonton. This will add nearly 1,800 affordable homes across Canada, the housing that Canadians need.
Will the Conservatives in the meantime support the first-time homebuyers' tax cut? They are stalling it, preventing first-time homebuyers from accessing $50,000 in savings.
[Translation]
Ethics
Mr. Speaker, when Brookfield makes money, the Prime Minister makes money. We are not the ones saying that. Brookfield's chief operating officer himself told us so yesterday at the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. As if that were not enough, we learned that 95% of the businesses owned by Brookfield are not even covered by the Prime Minister's famous ethics screen. Worse yet, the two people who are supposed to be monitoring the screen do not even have access to the full list of the Prime Minister's investments.
Can the Prime Minister explain why Brookfield's interests align perfectly with the Liberal budget that was tabled last week?
Mr. Speaker, I see that the our friends across the way are continuing to spread conspiracy theories. As the member is well aware, having presumably complied with it for the first time, the code of ethics that governs members of Parliament, parliamentarians and senior officials in Canada is among the strictest in the world. The Prime Minister is the first to follow that code with rigour and professionalism.
[English]
Persons with Disabilities
Mr. Speaker, once again the government is letting Canadian airlines violate the human rights of people with disabilities. This time it is WestJet, which put in place arbitrary weight restrictions, preventing people with motorized wheelchairs from flying. The result is that it is denying people with disabilities the right to travel safely for work, for education, or to visit loved ones.
When will the Liberals close loopholes in the Accessible Canada Act, uphold disability rights and hold corporate executives accountable when they violate these rights?
Mr. Speaker, of course, we have an ongoing dialogue with Canada's transportation companies about ensuring that the mark of a great society is the space and the ability for all members of that society to participate in it. We obviously want the transportation sector to be very reflective of that great generosity in Canada.
We have a proud record on this side of the House in renewing and reaffirming our commitment to accessibility in Canada. We will continue to do that, and we will do it in partnership with the transportation sector.
Health
Mr. Speaker, Danielle Smith is making an unprecedented attack on health care in this country. If she is allowed to get away with privatization, it will be the beginning of the end of public, universal, single-payer health care in this country, which is central to Canadian identity.
Alberta health care workers are calling for the government to protect health care and to enforce the Canada Health Act.
Will the Prime Minister protect public health care and enforce the law in this country, or will he just take a photo op with Danielle Smith?
Mr. Speaker, our new government will always protect the Canada Health Act and Canada's universal health care system. That is why in budget 2025 our new government is investing in our publicly funded health care system, including through generational investments of $5 billion to build health care infrastructures.
We have a collaborative approach with all provinces and territories to ensure that all Canadians continue to have equitable access to medically necessary care based on their medical needs, not on their ability to pay.
Privilege
Parliamentary Budget Officer—Speaker's Ruling
[Speaker's Ruling]
I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 17 by the member for Edmonton West regarding information the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested from the government.
The member alleged that a contempt of the House was committed when the government refused to provide in a timely manner information about measures in the 2025 budget, particularly the comprehensive expenditure review. He stated that this refusal was contrary to subsection 79.4(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act and that it compromised the House's ability to hold an informed debate on the budget speech.
The member pointed out that the Parliamentary Budget Officer had informed the House of this refusal by notifying the Speaker, as provided by section 79.42 of the act. In the member's view, the Parliamentary Budget Officer has a legislative mandate from Parliament to play an essential role in providing objective, non-partisan analysis on behalf of the House. He argued that refusing to provide the information the Parliamentary Budget Officer requested is analogous to ignoring a committee's request for documents.
The member asked the Chair to find a prima facie question of privilege so the House can discuss the means by which it might defend its authority and the rights of its officers.
[Translation]
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stated that the government is working in good faith to provide the information requested. He explained that the government had requested a delay so that it could meet its obligations to the employees affected by the coming reductions. In his opinion, this slight delay did not interfere with members’ rights, as the budget debate concerned a general approval of the budgetary policy, not detailed measures requiring analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
The member for Saint-Jean echoed the statements of the member for Edmonton West. In her view, the Parliamentary Budget Officer was impeded in his work. Violating a legal obligation to provide a document is an important reason for raising a question of privilege, since such a breach undermines the authority and dignity of the House.
[English]
Let us take a few moments to consider the wording of section 79.42 of the Parliament of Canada Act, because it is central to the matter before us. It provides that:
If the Parliamentary Budget Officer is of the opinion that he or she has not been provided with free or timely access to information requested under subsection 79.4(1), he or she may so notify the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Commons or any appropriate committee of the Senate, of the House of Commons or of both Houses of Parliament.
Pursuant to this section, the Parliamentary Budget Officer sent a letter to the Speaker, dated November 13, stating that the government would not meet a deadline of November 19, 2025, for providing information about the 2025 budget. A copy of a letter of the comptroller general of Canada confirming that the government would endeavour to provide the information in early December was also obtained. These documents were tabled in the House on Monday, November 17, 2025.
[Translation]
By advising the Speaker of the government's refusal, the Parliamentary Budget Officer made use of the appropriate recourse under the act. Moreover, it appears that one of the purposes of section 79.42, which was put forward during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-44, Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1, was to give the Parliamentary Budget Officer a parliamentary recourse mechanism in order to eliminate the need for court action. The committee evidence of May 29, 2017, also reveals that this section was designed to enable the House to subsequently demand the information itself, if it considered that appropriate.
It is true that the Parliamentary Budget Officer helps members better understand and debate financial matters. In the Parliament of Canada Act, Parliament gave the Parliamentary Budget Officer the ability to gain access to any government information that falls within their mandate. However, Parliament did not delegate its constitutional powers relating to the production of papers, under which the question of privilege could be brought forward.
When the House is seized of a matter such as the one raised by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, it is up to the House, not the Chair, to decide what response is required and whether to use its powers, which the House has not yet done.
[English]
At this time, the House has not adopted any order for the production of documents. Members have multiple ways of bringing matters such as the one raised by the member for Edmonton West before the House and having them debated.
The dispute between the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the government is unfortunate. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's legislative mandate is to support parliamentarians in order to raise the quality of debate and promote greater budget transparency and accountability. The act is clear: The Parliamentary Budget Officer has the right of access to any information that is required for the performance of their mandate. However, it is up to the House to decide how it wishes to respond to this situation. It would therefore be premature for the Chair to make a finding of privilege.
I thank all members for their attention.
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise on behalf of our Conservative team to provide my comments and feedback on the Liberals' 10th budget. The more they do it, the more they get used to doing the same thing: adding inflationary deficits to our national debt and raising the cost of living for families in every part of this country.
I have served as a member of Parliament proudly for the last six years. Before that, I served in municipal politics for 12. When I was serving as mayor, as in this role, the one thing I always said is that it is an easy job in politics to tell people what we are going to spend money on; the hard part is telling Canadians how we are going to pay for it.
There is one thing the Liberal government does the best out there. I will give the Liberals credit. I will give them one compliment in my 10-minute speech today. They are the best at photo ops and the word salad in all of the announcements. They make it sound like all of the things they are doing are actually making a difference in the lives of Canadians. The problem is when the reality comes back to them.
What do we see? We see an increased cost of living. We see more difficulty when it comes to affording housing and affording food. Their record is absolutely atrocious. The most frustrating thing when it comes to all of this is their inability to pay for it.
This is what I call a costly credit card budget, in the sense that with a massive $80-billion deficit, they are putting a massive amount of new money on Canada's credit card for future generations to pay. It is about printing more money. It is drives up inflation and drives up the cost of living when they do that.
Again, this has been a pattern we have seen. The Liberals claim to be a new government, but it is absolutely not. This is the same failed approach we have seen for 10 years.
Just look at the numbers right in the budget documents themselves. There is the projected amount of money we will spend in this fiscal year on public debt charges. That is just the interest to service our current national debt, which is about $1.4 trillion. The number is getting so high that we are into the trillions now. It costs $55 billion a year just in interest payments to service that debt. That is all the GST collected in the country. It does not go to health care. It does not go to roads. It does not go to housing. It does not go to fixing our broken bureaucracy. It does not go to improving service at the CRA. Every dollar in GST that is collected in the country goes to paying the interest on our debt.
If we look at the projections, it is $55.6 billion this year, and it is projected, over the next five years, to go up to $76.1 billion. The Liberals will be adding $320 billion more to our national debt over the course of the next five years. Most Canadians can look at that and say that if we keep adding and adding to our credit card with no plan to pay it off, that is not sustainable. That is exactly what we are seeing here with the Liberal budget.
A key part of the budget is homebuilding. We have a real problem in the country with getting homes built and affordable homes built.
I want to take this opportunity to bring up, as all politics is local, the local context from Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, where it was just reported at a Cornwall city council meeting in the last month that, according to the deputy CAO, Cornwall today is “at a standstill”. That is the quote it used.
In a city of 47,000 people, here is where the housing situation and housing starts stand. Only 12 building permits for houses and seven for duplexes have been issued in the city of Cornwall since May. That goes to show that buyers cannot buy, sellers cannot sell and, most importantly, builders cannot build. There are so many Canadians looking for home ownership and looking for new homes. We desperately need millions of new homes just to keep up with demand for affordability.
Right in my proud part of eastern Ontario, we have a very sad circumstance where, at the end of the day, only 19 building permits for houses and duplexes have been issued since May. It is a serious problem. The Liberals keep announcing billions and billions of dollars. They keep creating new bureaucracies. Their latest one is Build Canada Homes. It is another bureaucracy that is adding administrative paperwork and red tape, not actually cutting it.
Here is a fact about how proud the Liberals pretend to be about their housing programs. Their housing accelerator fund has failed badly in eastern Ontario. With red tape, municipalities like Cornwall, local townships in S, D and G and, more importantly, Cornwall and S, D and G housing services are banned from even being able to apply for funding. It has been years. The government has known about this but has not acted. It is blocking our communities from getting our fair share. Not only do we see slow housing starts in Cornwall, but we are seeing an inability for our city and the united counties of S, D and G to apply for help from the Liberal government.
It is failure after failure, but there is a solution I want to highlight. Our positive, constructive Conservative solution has gotten excellent feedback from builders that desperately want to get more shovels in the ground. The Liberals have a lot of half-baked measures. They are only taking the GST off of new homes for first-time homebuyers. As we can see by the stats in Cornwall and across the country, we need to unlock more potential.
What do we need to do? What Conservatives are proposing we do is a game-changer. It is a bold plan to take the GST off all new homes in Canada of up to $1.3 million. That is going to save the average Canadian homeowner up to $65,000. Not only that, but they will save money instantly on the purchase of their house up front, and they will save because they will not have to borrow as much. They could save roughly $3,000 a year in mortgage costs, further helping homes become more affordable in every part of this country.
The experts who analyzed our plan say that not only is it a good one, but it is going to go even further. It is going to boost the number of new homes built each year, sparking an extra 36,000 new homes built in Canada, and it is going to raise an extra $2.5 billion in income tax revenue from trades workers and home builders at a time when we desperately need all of that.
I am proud to stand on the floor to localize the frustrating challenges we have when it comes to homebuilding in the city of Cornwall, but also to highlight the constructive solutions we will be tabling, which are absent from the costly credit card budget of the Liberals. We have opposed this budget because the deficits are extremely high and there are the same old broken approaches when it comes to housing.
I often get asked what I would do to lower expenses. As spending by the Liberal government is out of control, what would I save money on?
There are two points I want to highlight very quickly. One is about trying to find the intelligence and reasoning behind why the Liberals decided, when they have an $80-billion deficit with no plans to balance the budget, to send $500 million to the European Space Agency. At a time when 2.2 million people are using food banks and people are struggling to get by, we are sending half a billion dollars over to Europe to send to space. We are creating European jobs at a time when we need Canadian jobs, with a 6.9% unemployment rate.
The second point I want to highlight when it comes to wasting taxpayers' money is the continued boondoggle of the $742-billion gun grab from law-abiding, legal, trained and tested firearms owners in this country. We have to look no further than Cape Breton, where the pilot of the failed public safety minister shows his failures continue. He had a pilot in Cape Breton, and reports say that as few as 22 firearms were collected from it. Nevertheless, the Liberals want to spend $742 million, which the minister even admitted on leaked audio would not work, as the pilot does not target the people we need to go after: the criminals and gun smugglers in this country. Right there is $1 billion in savings just by using a little common sense when it comes to the budget.
I want to wrap up my comments by acknowledging the many incredible people across S, D and G who are doing their part to help people in challenging times. I have spoken before about the Agape Centre in Cornwall, and now I want to highlight the amazing work the House of Lazarus is doing in Mountain. I had the privilege, as always, of talking with Cathy Ashby, the executive director, and her team there. They have seen a 100% increase in food bank use since 2019. It is not slowing down; it is only getting worse. The summer period alone this year has seen a 45% increase in food bank use. They now serve over 850 people.
It is Canadians like those who volunteer and work at the House of Lazarus who are going to help us get through this challenge. I am proud of their work. I am proud of the great things they are doing to try help people in need in S, D and G.
Mr. Speaker, the member talks about housing. If we reflect on housing, it is important to recognize that the responsibility for housing is actually with the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government, not to mention that stakeholders also have a role to play in this.
Now, when the member's leader sat around the cabinet table as the minister of housing, he actually did nothing. On record, he might be the worst minister responsible for housing that the country has ever had in its history. Now, let us contrast that to the current Prime Minister, who has not only committed resources but is committed to working with provinces and municipalities in order to create the housing to meet the needs that Canadians have in all regions. Would the member not agree that the Prime Minister's approach is the best approach?
Mr. Speaker, when our leader was the housing minister, housing prices were half the price that they are now. The Liberals have doubled housing prices, they have doubled rent, they have doubled mortgage payments, and they have never spent so much money to fail so badly.
What do we see in the budget? What are the Liberals doing? They are doing the exact same thing. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the minister's office of the Department of Housing were not enough, so now the Liberals are adding a new Build Canada Homes bureaucracy as if the third or fourth one is going to make a difference.
Our proposal and our contrast are clear. Taking the GST off all new homes being built in this country up to $1.3 million would save $65,000 up front and $3,000 on mortgage costs. Builders in my community and across the country agree that it would be a game-changer.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that chances of the government meeting its spending reduction targets are roughly 7%.
I will give an example. At the Canada Revenue Agency, the software that is currently being used to process our taxes dates back to the 1980s. Apparently, it is on a black screen with purple text. After not doing any modernization for decades, now the government wants to introduce artificial intelligence and reduce the number of workers at the Canada Revenue Agency. We are told that this is going to save money while providing better service. This is one example that comes to mind when we consider whether the Liberals are likely to meet their spending reduction targets.
Does my colleague think the Liberals are going to meet their spending reduction targets? If they do not, how much bigger will the deficits be in the coming years?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues said it best the other day. I think the Toronto Maple Leafs stand a better chance of winning the Stanley Cup than the Liberals do of meeting their own spending targets.
I have zero faith when we look at what the Parliamentary Budget Officer has said: There is a 7.5% chance they are even going to meet their own fiscal targets. Just from their budget last year, regarding these fiscal anchors that they talked about, they have broken all of them. They are just getting worse in this, year after year after year.
I will say this about the CRA's performance and how bad and incompetent the current Liberal government has been: It increased spending at CRA by 70%, and I am going to say that service at CRA got about 70% worse. I have never seen a government anywhere, federally, provincially or municipally, that has spent so much money to fail so badly.
Mr. Speaker, along that same vein of spending so much money and looking so bad, the member for Winnipeg North likes to compare records. I would like to compare records.
In 2015, the budget had a $1.9-billion surplus. In 2025, the budget has an almost $80-billion deficit. In 2015, we were $650 billion in debt as a country. In 2025, we are $1.3 trillion in debt, and we have never seen a government that could spend money faster.
My colleague gave some wonderful examples of food bank line-ups. How can the government spend so much when Canadians get so little out of it?
Mr. Speaker, it speaks to the point that the Prime Minister is just full of contradiction; he says one thing before the election and does the absolute opposite afterward, and the litany in the list is very, very long. Justin Trudeau, who we all thought was an exorbitant spender, was going to have a fiscal anchor and a deficit last year of no higher than $42 billion.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Eric Duncan: “Hold my beer” is right.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign that his deficit would only be $62 billion. Well, here the Liberals are a few months later. They finally get around to tabling a budget, and it is at $80 billion.
They promised to spend less. They are not very good at math, because their deficit is now double what it was projected to be last year. It is absolutely ridiculous and unsustainable.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to address colleagues on a key measure in budget 2025, the national school food program and the government's intention to enact legislation to make the program permanent.
The national school food program act, which would be enacted through Bill C-15, would set out the Government of Canada's long-term vision for the program, guided by the national school food policy.
[Translation]
This bill reinforces the government's efforts to ensure long-term funding for the program. We are working with the provinces and territories as well as indigenous partners to implement an initiative that enhances and expands school food programs across Canada.
It is not very often that a government measure is enthusiastically received by all provinces and territories, as well as indigenous partners and stakeholders.
[English]
In response to this development, the Canadian Teachers Federation said, “Fantastic News! The National School Food Program is here to stay”. The Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Breakfast Club of Canada also applauded this commitment to making the school food program permanent.
I have also met with provincial and territorial counterparts, such as Minister Cleveland from the Northwest Territories and Minister Hindley from Saskatchewan. They emphasize the positive impact that federal investments in school food are having on ensuring more children get nutritious meals at school.
[Translation]
As a result of these discussions, we learned that we are not the only ones who can see that the program is easing the pressure on families. It directly contributes to children's success by improving their health, education and well-being.
My responsibility today is to explain why we intend to make this program permanent and how it will make life more affordable for families across Canada.
[English]
Prior to federal investments, school food programs funded by provincial and territorial governments reached at least one in four school-aged children. Provinces and territories continue to invest in school food programming, with total funding estimated at $273 million last year, but persistent affordability pressures have meant that the demand for school food programming continues to grow.
[Translation]
Children deserve the best opportunities for success we can offer. That includes the opportunity to learn in school on a full belly.
[English]
In budget 2024, we invested $1 billion over five years to establish a national school food program and signed agreements with all 13 provinces and territories, as well as indigenous partners, to enhance and expand their school food programs.
[Translation]
Having such a program means having access to school lunches without prejudice or barriers, encouraging a healthy lifestyle, and creating connections with the local environment, culture and food systems.
[English]
This means prioritizing locally grown, healthy Canadian food while strengthening connections to local farmers, food producers and economies.
Good work is already happening, and it is important to continue this momentum. That is why our government is firmly committed to the national school food program, and this shows in budget 2025, which advances ongoing funding of $216.6 million per year starting at the end of the pilot project in 2029-30. This will make the program permanent.
The national school food program act was also introduced as part of the budget implementation act 2025, which is what we are debating today. The initiative we are cementing would provide up to 400,000 more children each year with access to nutritious meals at school while bringing down costs for parents. Research suggests that participation in such programs can save families with two children in school around $800 a year on groceries.
[Translation]
The school food programs offer immediate and long-term benefits to children and their families and protect them in times of uncertainty. These programs have improved academic performance, promoted better health and health equity, and strengthened ties to traditional cultures and food systems.
[English]
The national school food program is part of the federal government's work to build a more affordable Canada. This includes the Canada child benefit and other supports through targeted investments. They are all contributing to our effort to bring down costs for families so that they can get ahead.
The data tells us that every $1 invested in school food yields an estimated $2 to $6 in social returns. Studies also show that children who participate in robust school food programs go on to earn 3% to 5% more than those who do not.
[Translation]
In addition to ensuring that children receive the nutritious food they need, this program helps develop knowledge about food, strengthens communities and fosters local resilience.
[English]
I mentioned at the outset that the national school food program has been greeted enthusiastically by Canadians on the ground fighting food insecurity. I will illustrate this point.
As stated in a recent interview with Debbie Field, the national coordinator of the Coalition for Healthy School Food, “This is monumental. This is a generationally important decision that the government has made, and it will literally change the future of Canadian society and the health and well-being of children for generations to come.”
I also heard directly from members of the School Lunch Association in Newfoundland and Labrador. They deliver hundreds of meals each and every day in the federal riding of Central Newfoundland. They said they operate in four schools in the central region, with plans to expand in the area thanks to the additional funding the province will receive from the Government of Canada. Let us not forget that the Conservative MP for that riding called all of this garbage.
[Translation]
In addition, the education minister for the Northwest Territories confirmed to me that, thanks to our government's investments in the school food program in the territory, more children are attending school. Furthermore, according to consultations with Canadians across the country on the national school food policy in 2022 and 2023, affordability is the main reason schools need this program.
[English]
One child going to school hungry is too many. It is no way for a child to start their day of learning. It means they are not getting the best start in life, and ultimately that has an impact on all of us. That is why Canada's new government will make such permanent life-changing investments as the national school food program. It is now up to the Conservative members opposite as to whether they will listen to their provincial governments, listen to teachers and listen to their constituents in legislating this investment to help families get ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the secretary of state's speech.
In my community of Middlesex—London, I am hearing from parents all over, I am hearing from seniors and I am hearing from all kinds of people who say they cannot afford food. The reason they are having a hard time paying the bills, paying for heat and buying food is that the Liberal government's policies over the last 10 years have put them in this financial situation. People are struggling because of the policies of the Liberal government. Parents would not need to use and rely on a school food program if it were not for the fact that the government has put them in the position of having to choose between heating and food.
Can the member opposite comment on whether she and her government would like to change policies to actually put money back in the pockets of Canadians so that parents can afford to feed their kids?
Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada is putting money back in Canadians' pockets. The first thing this government did was cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. Budget 2025 makes historic investments, including in protecting the supports that Canadians rely on to help them with the cost of raising their families and the cost of living.
The national dental care program is an example of this. The reduced fees for early learning and child care across the country, some of which have been reduced by over 50%, are helping families with the cost of raising children. In addition to child care, we have the national school food program, as I mentioned, which puts $800 back in the pockets of families with two children.
On this side of the House, we are investing in families and we are supporting them with the cost of living.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is taking every opportunity to tell us that the budget invests $115 billion in infrastructure. When we actually look at the new funding, the budget lines indicate $9 billion, not $115 billion.
The Quebec finance department, which is assessing the new amounts, estimated that to be $22 billion over 10 years.
Of the $9 billion over five years that we calculated, $5 billion is for hospital infrastructure. That leaves $4 billion over five years from coast to coast to coast.
Can my colleague explain to me why the Minister of Finance is telling Canadians that there is $115 billion in new money for infrastructure when the real figure is $9 billion?
Does she not find that the Minister of Finance sometimes has a difficult relationship with the truth?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I commend the work that is being done within the ministry in regard to the school food program. As many members know in this House, I was an educator for almost two decades and an administrator who helped with that program in Nova Scotia.
Nova Scotia was actually one of the first proponents that signed on to this national program, and it has since been an exemplar for the program. I know, from being an administrator, when I was signing off on it, sometimes we think that it is just one meal a day. We can flip that and say it is one healthy meal a day. I know, and my colleagues who are educators all across the country will know, just how important it is for kids, cognitively, when they have their bellies full.
How does the secretary of state feel about having this program that is not a one-off announcement? This is now one of our core funded programs, and I wanted to know how she feels about it.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her work as an educator. The voices of educators are in this decision. We have heard from educators, from school boards and from principals across the country about how important school food is to learning for children, to their attention spans and to their capacity to sit still and participate in class. It also has long-term health impacts. There are very positive benefits, obviously, to receiving nutritious meals and to learning on a full stomach. I feel very proud that this government has prioritized this in budget 2025, and that we are making this permanent. I think it is indicative of our commitment to families, to children and to helping them get the best start in life.
To you, particularly in Nova Scotia, there is $12.4 million, and this program is in all 373 schools in your province.
This is just a reminder to members to speak through the Chair and not directly to other members.
As another reminder, it is important that, if they want to be recognized, members be in their seats as well as have the proper attire, which is why a particular member was not able to be recognized during the debate.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Middlesex—London.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians asked for relief, but with this Liberal budget, all they got was spin. Families asked for stable prices, safer streets and a clear plan to grow paycheques and bring investment back. Instead, they got the largest deficit in Canadian history outside of COVID, more debt and more creative accounting from a government that keeps saying, “Trust us”, while going out of its way to make life harder and less affordable.
The public reaction has been telling. Business groups called it directionless. Economists flagged the risks. Community leaders asked where the affordability plan actually is. Even more telling is that the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed what Canadians suspected: The government's numbers do not add up in a way that builds confidence or credibility. With $365 million in this budget for advertising, Canadians are literally left paying for Liberal talking points. Conservatives seek to give them results.
I do not expect people to just take my word for this, so here is what our country's top expert has to say on these matters. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told the parliamentary committee that he does not know if the government currently has fiscal anchors, calling that “a considerable degree of concern”. He further cautioned that the government's shifting definitions between capital and operating spending make it “impossible” to assess whether any target will be hit and that “the deficit will absolutely be higher.” He also warned that playing accounting games risks higher borrowing costs for Canadians.
I say, when the referee says the scoreboard can no longer be trusted, the game is in trouble.
Markets hear that. Rating agencies hear that. Families living paycheque to paycheque will end up paying the price in higher interest, weaker growth and fewer opportunities. This budget takes a bad habit and makes it worse, labelling routine spending as investment, backloading costs and burying off-cycle decisions in footnotes. It is typical of the Liberals' playbook to shift the definitions, claim victory and hope that no one reads the fine print. Unlike them, I know Canadians are smarter than that and will not be fooled. They are the ones who are left reading the receipt at the grocery checkout counter, and they see through it. If the plan is so strong, why the constant need to redefine the terms? Why the sudden innovative accounting to make numbers look less bad? When the government changes the ruler, its measurements become meaningless.
The Prime Minister likes to wave around his résumé, but even a first-year student has learned that the rampant spending is not strategy. In a period when inflation has eaten household savings and interest rates remain elevated, this budget piles on new borrowing with no credible path to balance. This is not compassionate assistance to those in need; it is intergenerational transfer, stealing the futures of people's kids and grandkids to fill today's political promises.
Every extra billion dollars borrowed today is a future tax hike or a program cut. Interest on the debt is crowding out the very things Canadians care about: health care capacity, community safety, national defence and infrastructure that actually gets built. We are already spending more just to service the public debt than we are on critical priorities. This budget accelerates that trend.
Investment goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well treated, but this budget doubles down on uncertainty with ever-changing rules, surprise levies and vague megaproject announcements with no shovels in sight. I look at how our dollar is crashing right now. We are witnessing capital choosing clarity elsewhere. Energy, mining and manufacturing projects and payrolls are drifting to jurisdictions with predictable timelines and real competitiveness plans.
We cannot build national prosperity on catchphrase-filled press releases. We build it on a stable, bankable framework that gets things approved and built, like pipelines, power lines, LNG terminals, critical mineral processing and housing at scale. Conservatives have been saying this for years. We have actually invited the Liberal government to steal our ideas. The offer is still open, because clearly they still do not know what they are doing.
The Prime Minister said Canadians would judge him at the grocery checkout. In Middlesex—London they have, and the verdict is not good. By the end of summer, headline inflation was 1.9%, but food inflation was 3.5%, year over year, still outpacing the overall basket. Meat rose by 7.2% and beef was up 12.7%, compared to last year. We cannot view food inflation as a graph. It is supper, and the portions are getting smaller. This is after years of compounded increases.
Let us put this in family dollar terms. In 2025, a typical family of four is expected to spend about $16,800 and change on food, which is up roughly $802 from last year. Over the past several years, the cumulative climb is now in the thousands of dollars. Many families describe it as hundreds more each year, with the steepest jump happening right now. In Ontario, staples keep getting higher. Sirloin is up 33%; canned soup is up 26%, coffee 22% and sugar 20% in recent months.
A rebate cheque is not a food policy. A school meal press release does not reduce the price of groceries for a two-income family just trying to keep the lights on and gas in the car. When government policy drives up costs then offers taxpayers their own money back, that is not help; it is a headline. If the Liberals let people keep more of their own money, they would not have to play saviour and feed their kids for them. They created the problem, and now they want us to pat them on the back and say “good job” for refusing to fix it.
I want to share some of the many voices from Middlesex—London, anonymized because Conservatives believe people deserve privacy from their government, but their words deserve the House's attention. I quote: “We're choosing between groceries and gas this month. If something breaks, we're sunk.” I quote: “Both of us work full-time. We've never used a food bank before. Now we do twice a month.” I quote: “I don't want a one-time cheque. I want my weekly grocery bill under control.”
Food bank use is up sharply across this country. Major urban centres are reporting record visits. Local food banks are stretched thin and are often forced to reduce what goes into each hamper. That should not be the normal in a country blessed with farmland, energy and ingenuity. It is the consequence of Liberal political and policy failures on competition, supply chains, energy and taxes that pile on costs every step of the way.
However, the Liberal government thinks it can trick people. The budget inserts the word “affordability” into more programs and more announcements, but the structure is the same: centralize, spend, label it investment and hope prices somehow come down. Here is a news flash: They will not, not while we constrain energy, choke approvals, fail trade negotiations and add costs at each link in the supply chain from farm to fork.
Families need less government in the checkout lane and more common sense in policy. Conservatives do this. We keep policy simple, demanding that the government scrap hidden and cascading taxes that inflate the cost of producing and transporting food, fast-track logistics and processing capacity so harvests move more efficiently and cold storage is available, increase real competition in grocery retail and wholesaling by ending the supply chain bullying that feeds higher prices and green-light energy and critical infrastructure to reduce embedded costs in every product on the shelf. That is what a real plan looks like. Canadians want a plan that measures success by lower prices, more paycheques and safer communities, not by how many failed programs were renamed.
A Conservative plan means we will bring home lower costs and cut wasteful spending; unleash homegrown energy and industry; approve and build energy infrastructure, pipelines, power lines, LNG, nuclear and mining; streamline permits with firm timelines and a “one project, one review” rule; restore competition and fairness in the food supply chain; remove expensive hidden taxes on food such as the industrial carbon tax, front-of-pack labelling and the plastics registry; maintain safe streets, secure borders and get serious about justice.
We will end catch-and-release for violent repeat offenders; enforce at the border to stop the smuggling that fuels organized crime and drives up costs through theft and insurance; focus police resources on criminals and not on law-abiding citizens; have a credible fiscal anchor; publish a clear and independently verifiable path to balance; stop shifting definitions to game the ledger; and invite the PBO to audit the government's capital and operating methodology so that Canadians and markets can trust the numbers once again.
In Middlesex—London, farmers, processors, truckers, shopkeepers and families are not asking for utopia. They are asking for the government to stop getting in the way: predictable rules, faster approvals, real competition and honest books. They are asking to bring discipline to government so families can bring dinner to the table. They want to make more here at home, such as food, energy and materials, and build homes and industry so we are not at the mercy of foreign supply chains and foreign governments. That is real resilience. That is the Canadian way.
This budget is a glossy brochure for a product that keeps breaking, and Canadians have tried it for 10 years. The Liberal lemon costs more, delivers less and leaves future generations with the bill. Enough is enough.
To the families in Middlesex—London, we—
Mr. Speaker, the government is constantly being accused of driving up inflation, yet according to the International Monetary Fund, Canada's inflation is consistently the second-lowest in the G7 and the fourth-lowest in the G20.
How is this out-of-control inflation when, on the world scale of comparator countries, we are near the bottom for the rate of inflation?
Mr. Speaker, when a government expands faster than the economy and it borrows more without discipline, the result is baked-in pressure, prices and interest rates. This keeps mortgages unaffordable. Mortgage payments have doubled. Rent has doubled. Businesses are having a hard time.
If we add energy uncertainty, slow approvals and trade, we will get a higher embedded cost in absolutely everything, especially food.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there was a lot to take in from my colleague's speech. Where to begin? I want to talk about the one thing that the Liberals and the Conservatives agree on: oil. Recently, we found out that there will be an announcement on Thursday about a new pipeline.
I would like to remind the Conservatives and everyone listening that we already invested $34 billion of taxpayers' money to buy the Trans Mountain pipeline. Did this decision benefit an already rich oil company or the people?
People are already having a hard time because of the food crisis and the housing crisis. The climate crisis, however, seems to have faded away, as though it were happening on another planet. I would like my colleague to explain something. Do oil and tax credits help the people, or do they help wealthy corporations?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the third-largest oil reserves in the world. If we tapped into our oil and gas sector and put Canadians to work in good-paying jobs, this country would be amazing. We would be making money and taxpayers would be paying taxes, but we need to put people to work and we need to get the oil out of the ground.
We need to get the economy going, because the Liberal government keeps overspending, and we need to find ways to bring down that deficit and create jobs in this country for our own people.
Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of visiting my hon. colleague from Middlesex—London to speak with some of her seniors. I have also heard from the seniors in my community and across this province. The number one thing they are concerned about is the fact that inflation is dipping into their fixed incomes. They cannot afford it. They cannot afford food. They cannot afford to heat their homes. They cannot afford their medication. This budget has absolutely nothing in it to help the most vulnerable and the seniors who built this country.
Could my colleague please speak to that?
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for visiting Middlesex—London a couple of weeks ago.
I am going to read something. I have constituents who write in quite often. Carrie, from Middlesex—London, says things are so bad right now that she actually asked if someone could apply for MAID just because they can no longer afford to live in Ontario. No one should be driven to that point in a country like Canada, but that is what 10 years of Liberal policies have done.
Chris, from London, wrote he's terrified by what he is reading about rising violent crime and extortion across the country. He used to feel safe in my own neighbourhood, but now he worries every day, and it seems like the Liberal government is more interested in excuses than fixing the laws.
Gerry, from Middlesex—London, thanked us for standing up and bringing forward Conservative bills. They are exactly what Canada needs to restore peace and prosperity after years of Liberal mismanagement. He agrees with the direction we and our leader are taking and believes these are common-sense solutions that will finally start to turn this country around.
Hope is out there. I want to tell the folks in Middlesex—London to keep the faith and keep up hope, because Conservatives are going to keep fighting for them here every day.
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in this chamber on behalf of the people I represent in Winnipeg South Centre.
To govern is to choose, and what we have chosen to do is build, protect and empower this country. I would like to take the opportunity over the course of the next minutes I am afforded here in the chamber to talk about some of the ways that those I represent would be most positively impacted by the decisions the government has undertaken in this budget.
A couple of days ago, the finance minister was in Winnipeg and I had the privilege of offering some remarks at the end of his speech to the audience from The Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. I took an opportunity then, which I will take again now, to speak very briefly about the democratic process.
Democracy, to me, is about much more than simply our participation on election day or the weekly affairs we undertake as members in this chamber. It is also about the important work that happens in the exchange of ideas, conversation and dialogue between elected representatives like us and those we represent.
This budget, I am very proud to say, reflects Winnipeg South Centre, Winnipeg and Manitoba in big ways. We have decided in this budget to ensure that the programs the people in my riding continue to rely on every day are sustained. These include social programs such as the Canada child benefit program, child care, the national school food program, pharmacare and dental care.
The budget includes many Manitoba-specific initiatives, some of which I will talk about more today. It includes things like the Canada Water Agency, for which I have to give significant credit to my colleague from Winnipeg South. Without his leadership and initiative, this agency would not be what it is today. Not only that, it would not have been located in my hometown of Winnipeg. It is a critical piece of government infrastructure that helps protect the health and well-being of our water systems, including the tenth-largest freshwater lake in the world, Lake Winnipeg, located in Manitoba.
To get into some of the core aspects of the budget, I want to talk about community centres, which are at the heart of our neighbourhoods. I am very proud to represent 10 community centres in Winnipeg South Centre serving the 100,000 people who call our riding home. This budget sets aside $51 billion for the build communities strong fund. This would help realize substantial potential at the local, grassroots level, ensuring that we are there to support the needs of the people in our communities.
An example of this is the Riverview Community Centre. I was very proud to announce just under $1 million for it a few short months ago. What will that $1 million do? It will help to ensure that new spaces are renovated using incredibly sustainable materials and environmentally friendly processes. In addition to that, it will ensure that there is more space that will allow for the generation of revenue at the local level. This means that there will be more places for parents to use, whether it be for dance initiatives, different clubs, sporting events or musical activities. It also means that the community centre can earn some revenue, which it can in turn invest back into the community.
This building communities strong fund is going to help support dozens of centres like Riverview Community Centre across this country, and I am proud that it has been included in this budget.
I am going to shift for a moment to health care. I always think of my mother, who I am incredibly proud of. At 70 years old, she is still working full-time as an addictions doctor in the province of Manitoba, helping some of the most vulnerable and needy in our society. Like many of my colleagues in this place who have talked openly about the challenges that their family members, friends and colleagues have faced, I too have had experiences with close relatives and family members suffering from mental health and addiction challenges. I am very proud that in this budget, we would undertake a number of initiatives to help address those needs.
The most important initiative to highlight is the $5-billion health infrastructure fund. This fund would be in addition to the historic high provincial health care transfers that the federal government has invested in over the course of the past number of years. What would this fund do? It would do a couple of really important things. The first would be the construction of hospitals, emergency rooms, urgent care centres and medical schools.
In my city of Winnipeg, there is a significant crisis unfolding right now related to fentanyl and meth. The investments we make in our health care systems are critical to ensuring that we meet the needs of these people and that we meet them where they are. Another thing we would do, in addition to these health care measures, is make sure that the public safety component of that challenge is met, and I will speak more to that in a few moments.
Related to the challenges that people are facing, particularly around mental health and addiction, is housing. There are a number of important initiatives in this budget related to housing. For example, there is the removal of GST on homes valued up to $1 million being purchased by individuals buying a home for the first time.
There are a variety of other examples. Being from Winnipeg South Centre, I would love to take the opportunity to talk specifically about initiatives in my riding. One of those is a project referred to as Naawi-Oodena. Members who have been around for some time may know this as the former site of the Kapyong Barracks in Winnipeg. A very long process was undertaken whereby the Government of Canada worked with first nations communities that had the rights to the land in order to move forward on development. Fortunately, after a very lengthy process, we have arrived at this point, and we have already started to see significant development on the site. Part of the site is owned by Canada Lands, which, as a result of the direction our government gave it, is making sure that there will be 320 units as part of this redeveloped site, with 40% of them being affordable. They will eventually be part of a total of 2,100 housing units across the full site.
What is really important about this is not just the housing infrastructure or the wraparound services and supports we need to make sure that people who are struggling right now are able to get the help they need to continue to make progress on their journey to recovery. It is also about how we are honouring the significant historical ties that exist in these communities. There are a few examples of this in my riding of Winnipeg South Centre, including the historical Rubin Block, which will be redeveloped, and the Elswood, which is going to be an energy-efficient, 147-unit facility in Winnipeg South Centre.
In the time I have remaining, I want to talk about the Port of Churchill Plus project. The Golden Boy, which sits atop the Manitoba legislature, faces north to symbolize the power and the future of the north, whether that be Canada or, specifically, northern Canada. In this instance, I am talking about northern Manitoba. The port of Churchill serves as a key economic hub, but it is one that can be enhanced significantly. We are working tirelessly, as a Manitoba caucus, as a Prairies and north caucus and as a government wholesale, alongside first nations partners in Manitoba and the provincial government, to make sure that we can get this to the next phase. This is going to allow for significant critical mineral development, among other things.
Because my time is wrapping up, I will talk very quickly about something my father used to share with me when he was in politics. He would talk about two particular moments in Manitoba's political history that he always kept at the front of his memory.
One is referred to as “Duff's Ditch”. This is the floodway in Manitoba that was built to protect Winnipeg and surrounding communities from the flooding of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers. It was not a popular decision for the Progressive Conservative premier at the time, but thank goodness he did it, because it has saved the city and tens of billions of dollars. The second example that I will highlight very quickly is Assiniboine Park, which is located in my riding. Every single city councillor who voted in favour of it lost their seat in the subsequent election, but today it serves as a marvel and a gem of our community.
The point is to invest—
Mr. Speaker, interest on the debt has now swallowed more money than most federal departments, even more than what we send to the provinces for health care.
How does the member look Canadians in the eye and justify shovelling tens of billions of dollars into bankers and bondholders instead of seniors waiting for a doctor, families crushed by housing costs, or communities desperate for safer streets?
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member was not listening more carefully to my speech. I just talked about historic health care transfers. I talked about $5 billion in addition to that in health care infrastructure. I talked about historic funding in housing. I talked about huge reforms to our public safety systems and administration of justice in this country. All the things my colleague across the way just asked for are not only highlighted in the budget but serve as a core foundational framework for it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said in his speech that health care was a priority for him, so he will have to provide me with some explanations regarding the budget.
Under the agreement between the federal government and Quebec, the federal government was supposed to cover 50% of health care costs. It is currently paying about 22%. I think that my colleague can see that there is a discrepancy there.
We also note that, starting in 2028, health transfers will not increase by more than 3%, even though health care costs are rising by 5% or 6% a year. This discrepancy creates a $1-billion annual deficit for Quebec's health care system. I hope that the member understands that as well.
I would like my colleague to explain to me why the government is able to find $100 billion to provide tax credits until 2040, when it is unable to adequately support the health care system and honour the original agreement, which was to fund 50% of Quebec's health care system.
Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that my colleague would ask a question about Quebec's health care system. I respect the fact that this is a priority for my Bloc Québécois colleagues, but since I am a member from Winnipeg, Manitoba, I do not have much more information to share about the agreements signed between the federal government and the Government of Quebec.
However, I am proud to say that the investments we have made in the province of Manitoba are making a big difference for the people of Winnipeg South Centre.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, a member from the Bloc Québécois just made a point about how the federal government had initially been spending 50% of health care for provinces. However, the member from the Bloc does not seem to remember that when that was the case, the top marginal tax rate in Canada was 80%.
Would the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre agree that this is not a feasible solution for Canadians?
Mr. Speaker, far be it for me to disagree with the doctor who represents Winnipeg West. I will take his word for it. However, I do not have to just take his word for it, because I have had conversations with hundreds if not thousands of people on the ground in Winnipeg South Centre, during the time I have had the privilege of representing them, who have highlighted for me that our investments in health care in Manitoba are critical to their well-being.
For young people to older adults and everybody in between, the budget is going to be a critical framework from which we can continue to deliver the highest standard of care in Manitoba.
I will just take the opportunity in closing to say that I thank my hon. colleague from Winnipeg West very much for his ongoing dedication to our health care systems in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague from Winnipeg to try to answer a question that two of his other colleagues refused to answer or did not know the answer to.
Does the member believe that the $100 million in the budget that is to go to Huawei, a company the Liberal government has banned from using our 5G services, is a smart use of Canadian taxpayer dollars?
Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed the time I spent at committee with my colleague across the way. One of the things I enjoyed about my time with him is that I always found our conversations educational. There was much I had to learn from him, and I will take this opportunity as one whereby I will seek his guidance for more input on where he thinks the challenges and opportunities in relation to this problem lie.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this budget is a complete sham. Thanks to some very creative accounting, it hides a $78-billion deficit by claiming that $45 billion in spending is actually an investment, when that is not the case at all.
Normally, an investment is backed by assets. For example, a person who invests in a house keeps the house. However, in the budget, tax credits for oil companies are presented as investments. That makes no sense. My colleague from Mirabel did the math and found that if we applied the same criteria to Justin Trudeau's budgets, then they all would have been more or less balanced.
The budget's key measures are the previously announced tax cut, unlikely investments in defence, and the elimination of tens of thousands of public service jobs. This budget is probably most disappointing for the health care sector.
Members will recall, as my colleague just mentioned, that federal health transfers used to cover 50% of Quebec's health care costs back in the 1970s. That was a real commitment. Today, the transfers barely cover 22% of Quebec's health care costs, depriving Quebec of billions of dollars. That is what is known as the fiscal imbalance. Half of our taxes go to Ottawa, but the services are in Quebec, and the federal government does as it pleases with its money.
In 2020, the premiers of Quebec and the provinces joined forces and demanded a substantial increase in health transfers from the Liberals. They asked that the transfer be increased to 35%, or $28 billion a year. Four years later, the Liberals did what they do so often: They managed to break the consensus by signing individual agreements adding up to $46.2 billion over 10 years. That represents about one-sixth of the amount that Quebec and the provinces calculated they would need.
This budget does not include any increase in health transfers. What is more, as of 2027-28, the escalator will drop to 3%. As was said earlier, this will not even cover the natural 5% to 6% increase in costs, mainly due to population aging.
The Liberals say that the budget includes $5 billion over three years for health infrastructure. That is peanuts. For Quebec, this comes out to roughly $300 million a year for three years. The Liberals are clearly telling us that we cannot count on them to carry out major projects such as the Maisonneuve-Rosemont hospital renovation, which alone is costing $5 billion, not to mention all the other projects in Quebec.
Seniors are being left behind in this budget. We know that they have been losing purchasing power since 1975. That year, the old age security pension was 20% of the average industrial wage. In 2020, pensions represented only 13% of the average wage. After years of pressure from the Bloc Québécois, the Liberals raised pensions by 10%, but only for seniors aged 75 and over. They ended up creating two classes of seniors. Seniors aged 65 to 74 need money. They are often close to the poverty line. We proposed increasing their OAS by 10% too, but there is nothing for seniors. The budget simply renews the New Horizons for Seniors program, which we are all familiar with and which can provide a seniors' organization with up to $25,000 per year, although very few projects are approved.
The Bloc Québécois was calling for a refund for the $3.7 billion in pre-election goodies that were distributed by the Liberals and disguised as a carbon tax rebate. Funnily enough, the carbon tax was no longer being collected, but the Liberals saw an opportunity to hand out goodies and decided to send out a rebate for the carbon tax, even though it had not been collected, without giving anything to Quebec or British Columbia because they do not have a carbon tax. That money was taken from Quebeckers' pockets, from their federal taxes. It amounts to $814 million stolen from Quebeckers. We will say it again. We will continue to say it. We keep harping on this, but it is completely unacceptable.
The Bloc Québécois also asked that Quebec be compensated $733 million for costs associated with taking in asylum seekers. Everyone knows that Quebec takes in much more than its share of asylum seekers. This budget does not address that at all. Instead, it offers $120.4 million over four years, starting in 2026‑27, for a single initiative to recognize eligible protected persons as permanent residents.
We all see cases of people waiting to get their permanent resident status or citizenship. It takes four or five years for these migrants and asylum seekers to get a response. This results in truly inhumane situations.
Most significant of all will be this budget's impact on the environment. Climate action is virtually absent from this budget. In contrast, fossil fuel industries will get bigger tax credits for longer. Oil and gas companies will keep pocketing even more public money, especially for carbon capture, a process that will never pan out. It is basically an expense used to justify extracting even more oil. Those companies will get other tax credits until 2040.
This is what the government is offering after getting rid of carbon pricing and reducing EV purchase incentives and quotas. It also abandoned the strategy to plant billions of trees. That was a ridiculous measure, but it was supposed to happen. The government has also dropped the 2030 greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets that are needed to meet the Paris targets and much more.
Mark Carney promised climate competitiveness—
I would remind the member that he is not to refer to the Prime Minister by name in the House. Instead, he should refer to his title.
The member may continue his speech.
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised climate competitiveness. Well, what we got was climate capitulation. Furthermore, we have just learned that the Liberals are going to announce funding for a new dirty oil pipeline. This is the second pipeline they are going to invest in. All of this will, of course, be financed in part by Quebeckers.
As for news media, CBC/Radio-Canada is getting $150 million, with no requirements or conditions; however, there is nothing at all to support private broadcasters and digital media newsrooms. After depriving them of $1.2 billion by refusing to tax American digital platforms, the Prime Minister is now completely abandoning them. The Standing Committee on Official Languages is currently meeting with representatives from private media, notably those from Quebec. They are facing serious challenges and are sounding the alarm. French-language radio associations are so desperate that they are even asking for a reduction in French content quotas.
The federal government could easily take action to support them without costing it a penny. For example, it could spread out the federal government's advertising dollars and give them a little more. Of course, ultimately, the only solution is to tax and regulate American digital platforms, which are suffocating them by sucking up their advertising revenue. We have been denouncing this situation for years. It is a matter of tax fairness.
Furthermore, the government will be investing only $9 billion in new infrastructure spending. Finally, while the Bloc Québécois called for the renewal and unconditional transfer of funds for homebuilding, the Liberals announced further centralization.
We offered our co-operation, but it is clear that this is an oil-driven conservative budget and that we were the only ones who really wanted to work in the interests of Quebeckers.
Mr. Speaker, I was very surprised to see my colleague vote against the budget the other day, because there are several infrastructure projects that will have a significant impact on Quebec's economy. I am thinking of the Contrecœur container terminal project, the eastern energy partnership, and the Alto high-speed rail project, not to mention all the other infrastructure projects that the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for a long time, such as the extension of the runway at the Magdalen Islands airport.
I would like to know how my colleague can oppose infrastructure projects that will have major benefits for Quebec's economy.
Mr. Speaker, the provinces were asking for $100 billion for infrastructure. They got $9 billion in new money. That is not very much. It is like a sprinkle of little goodies. The entire thing is just a bad deal for Quebec and the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech. Clearly, I do not agree with much of what he said, especially at the end when he said that the budget that was presented is a conservative budget. Far be it from me to contradict him, but a budget with a $78-billion deficit and interest payments that are higher than what the provinces get in health transfers is not at all what I would call a conservative budget.
My colleague is not at all a Conservative because all his demands, unfortunately, result in adding even more to the Liberal government's spending.
We have already forced the next generation and every generation after that into debt. Where is my colleague getting all this money from?
Mr. Speaker, the request amounts to 0.5% of Canada's GDP. That is not excessive at all.
However, I do agree with my colleague to a certain extent. The Liberals often say that this is a generational budget. Of course, they are going to leave behind a generational debt and deficit. Above all, they will be leaving behind measures that promote climate change and that will be very difficult for future generations.
Mr. Speaker, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who gave an excellent speech, is very familiar with the Official Languages Act. He knows that the effect of the Official Languages Act in Quebec is to treat the anglophone community as a minority on the verge of extinction. This means that Quebeckers' tax dollars end up funding English in Quebec and the integration of immigrants into the anglophone community. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about money being invested in this way in Quebec.
We are debating the budget. How should Quebeckers' money be spent when it comes to protecting official languages?
Mr. Speaker, I see that the member for Mirabel understands the situation.
There is nothing in the budget on official languages. We see that francophones outside Quebec are struggling. We hear them say that they have rundown schools that are former anglophone schools. They are truly being treated like second-class citizens and the government is sitting on its hands and doing nothing.
In Quebec, however, despite the changes to the Official Languages Act, the government keeps spending and exclusively funding the development of English-speaking communities, namely their education system, to promote English, for anglophone lobby groups, for more English in the legal and health care sectors. However, in Quebec, it is French that is under threat. If the government does not want to help French in Quebec, then it should at least not harm it. If the government needed to find areas to make budget cuts, this might have been a good place to start. At the very least, the government could have taken that money and transferred it to Quebec.
This shows that when it comes to language, the only way to ensure the future of French in Quebec is through independence.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise today on behalf of the residents of Brampton South to speak in support of Bill C-15.
Budget 2025 sets out a clear path forward, one of fiscal responsibility, of investing in Canadians, of safeguarding national security and of building safer communities. Budget 2025 is a plan for growth, inclusion and opportunity. It is a responsible, forward-looking plan that provides stability in uncertain times and delivers real, practical results for communities like in my constituency in Brampton South.
In Brampton we are growing fast in population, diversity and innovation. Bramptonians expect results: more homes, stronger transit, better health care, safer streets and good jobs with good wages. Budget 2025 delivers on those priorities. It balances fiscal responsibility with the long-term investments that support growth, fairness and opportunity.
Bill C-15 would strengthen essential programs and expand federal support in ways that would directly improve the lives of the residents of Brampton South. Budget 2025 reflects a government that listens, responds and takes action. It is not a budget of abstract promises; it is a budget of action.
Housing supply and affordability are urgent challenges in Brampton communities. Bill C-15 would speed up housing construction, strengthen incentives for rental development and expand tools that support cities in building more homes faster. For Brampton this would mean more funding for purpose-built rentals and measures supporting the city's long-term plan to build tens of thousands of homes near major transit hubs at Bramalea, City Centre, Mount Pleasant and Hurontario Street.
Transit infrastructure is equally important for Brampton. Bill C-15 would enhance federal support for zero-emission buses, fleet expansion, route enhancements and transit-priority infrastructure, which would directly assist Brampton Transit in meeting record ridership demand. Just to let members know, Brampton Transit carried more than 43 million passengers in 2024, an increase of almost 125% from 2021. That is why these investments are so important.
The investments would reduce traffic congestion, help workers commute more efficiently, and support Brampton's climate goals. When we give people a home near accessible transit, jobs and services, we reduce commute times, lower emissions and improve the quality of life of the residents of Brampton.
Health care is a growing need in Brampton. Budget 2025 responds with a dedicated $5-billion health infrastructure fund to update hospitals, emergency rooms and urgent care centres. It invests in expanding primary care teams, reducing wait times and increasing training spots for doctors and nurses.
I am particularly proud to highlight that budget 2025 provides $25 million in funding to Toronto Metropolitan University's school of medicine in Brampton, Canada's newest and Brampton's first medical school. It is the first new medical school in the GTA in 100 years. This funding of $25 million will help train the next generation of physicians right here in Brampton. We need more health care professionals in this country. That is what we are addressing in the budget.
We are investing $97 million in faster foreign credential recognition so skilled professionals can contribute faster, especially in the health care and construction fields. To support people on the front lines, budget 2025 introduces a temporary personal support workers tax credit, allowing eligible PSWs to claim a refundable tax credit of up to $1,100 per year.
Innovation and productivity are the engines of a strong economy. Budget 2025 makes bold investment to keep Canada competitive, diversify our trade and support businesses impacted by tariffs.
It is very important that we increase productivity in our country. The budget incentivizes private sector investment in research and development, strengthens tax credits for innovation and supports cutting-edge technologies that drive growth. Notably, budget 2025 commits more than $900 million to support a large-scale, sovereign, public AI infrastructure, ensuring that Canada has the computing power to lead in artificial intelligence.
More of every public dollar should go to the Canadian economy and benefit the Canadian community. The budget not only invests in fully implementing a buy Canadian policy across the federal government but also helps Canadian small and medium-sized businesses break into the federal market.
Affordability is top of mind for families in Brampton South. Our government remains committed to accessible, affordable child care. This is a proven record. Since 2021, more women with young children are working. The participation rate is now at 79%.
The Canadian dental care plan continues to expand. Now, six million Canadians of all ages are covered under the plan. Seniors in Brampton South have given me very positive feedback. I have seen first-hand many seniors who had never had dental work and now have. The plan will now benefit Canadians of all ages.
Bill C-15 would make the national school food program permanent, providing healthy meals for up to 400,000 children every year. No child can go to school hungry.
Investment in Build Canada Homes will help double the pace of affordable homebuilding over the next 10 years.
Public safety is fundamental to any vibrant community. Budget 2025 delivers by providing new funding for law enforcement agencies to combat organized crime and auto theft, enhanced border security tools to intercept stolen vehicles and illegal guns, support for community safety and youth prevention programs, resources for community-driven safety initiatives and support for a national public alerting system.
Budget 2025 also introduces Canada's first-ever national anti-fraud strategy aimed to establish a new financial crime agency and a code of conduct for the prevention of economic abuse. These measures will protect Canadians, especially seniors, from financial fraud and abuse. Budget 2025 also supports the new horizons for seniors program, showing that we value the contribution of senior Canadians in communities like mine of Brampton South.
The budget commits $1.5 billion to creating jobs and opportunities for young people. It invests in re-skilling workers and training the next generation of Canadian builders.
Budget 2025 reflects a government that believes in vibrant communities and inclusive growth. It reflects the priorities of Canadians and the aspirations of the people of Brampton South. Our goal is to create good jobs, local growth and a resilient one Canada economy.
Budget 2025 is a transformative budget that builds homes and infrastructure, expands health care, strengthens public safety, supports seniors and grows our economy. It is a budget that moves Canada forward and ensures that communities like Brampton are not left behind but are leading the progress. I am proud to support Budget 2025. I look forward to seeing the positive impact the budget will deliver for all Bramptonians and Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I think that the member's view of what is actually happening on the ground in Canada is the exact opposite. Food bank usage is at its highest it has ever been. Millions of people are lining up for the food bank, many of whom are going for the first time.
Unfortunately the government seems to be taking pride in the fact that it is creating programs that supply food. I am old enough to remember when it was the individual's responsibility to go to work, create an income, buy their own food and find a place to live in a safe neighbourhood. All of that has been eviscerated, so I guess wonder whether, if the situation continues, the government will be creating an adult food program.
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with this. This budget will help 400,000 children with a food program. It will also help seniors and those of all ages with a dental care plan. It will help build major infrastructure and homes and will build industries that grow our economy and create lasting prosperity. I think this budget will put Canada in a good fiscal position and will build a strong Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there is something extremely dangerous about this budget. I invite my colleague to turn to page 301. She will see that the government is being allowed to circumvent all laws, except the Criminal Code, in order to push forward projects disguised as innovation.
Here in Parliament, we make the laws. However, now those laws can be circumvented if a minister comes along and says he has a good project. There is no need for assessments. There is no need to follow the laws. The government is giving itself the power to override any law.
I would like a clear explanation from my colleague. If this is not an open door to patronage and a serious departure from democracy, then what is it?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I want to give the example of a project in Montreal that is strengthening our supply chain, diversifying our trade and creating thousands of jobs in Quebec. The project will generate approximately $140 million annually in local and economic benefits in Quebec and across Canada.
This budget is a very good budget. Not only will it make my community strong, but it will also make our country strong.
Mr. Speaker, public safety is an important issue for my colleague's riding, and in the budget we are making important investments to strengthen public safety. Since we formed government last spring, we have put forward many pieces of legislation regarding public safety. I would like to hear the member's views on how those investments are going to benefit her riding.
Mr. Speaker, public safety is the top priority in my community. As I said in my speech, safety is the top priority for families. Budget 2025 delivers real action to crack down on auto theft, home invasion and organized crime. This budget invests $1.7 billion over four years in the RCMP, including 1,000 new personnel and recruitment incentives to strengthen investigation and support local police across the country. This is built on our government's recent bail and sentencing reform act, which would tighten bail for repeat violent offenders and strengthen sentencing. Together, these measures would give law enforcement stronger tools and would ensure that communities like Brampton have the support they need to stay safe.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a nation built on ordinary people doing extraordinary things. It was the prairie farmers who turned barren land into the world's greatest breadbasket. It was the workers who carved a national railway through mountains so grand that they seemed immovable. It was the veterans who fought tyranny overseas and then returned home to build communities here in this nation, and it was, as it continues to be, the inventors, builders, entrepreneurs and newcomers who used their skills, their hands and their knowledge to build Canada and make us a nation that is admired around the world.
At every turning point in our history, it was the determination, creativity and grit of the people that spurred us forward, and today, despite the heavy burdens on them, Canadians remain our greatest source of hope. They want to build. They want to contribute. They want to provide for their families and to see our communities thrive. They do not want and they do not need yet another government handout.
The hon. member just gave an entire speech for 10 minutes outlining program after program. There is nothing empowering about that. Canadians want to be effective on their own. They need a government that trusts them. They need a government that removes barriers and unleashes their potential. In other words, they need a government that facilitates opportunity and empowers them to do great things. That is what Canadians want.
Unfortunately, that is not what this budget delivered. Instead, budget 2025 was all but that. It really was a chance, the government's opportunity, to put trust in the Canadian people to launch them forward and help them succeed by simply facilitating an environment of economic prosperity rather than laying out program after program, which makes Canadians small and the government big. It is insulting, and Canadians are tired of it.
I will give an example. In question period, we have been asking about affordability. Recently, the Secretary of State for Children and Youth said that if a senior is struggling to afford food or a parent is struggling to pay for baby formula, the Liberals have an answer for them: the school food program. We can just sign those seniors up and get those babies in the school food program. With regard to rent and mortgages, this is what the Minister of Jobs and Families had to say: Those having a hard time putting a roof over their head should not worry; there is a national dental care program.
If these suggestions sound ludicrous, it is because they are. They are absolutely ludicrous, because the problem for someone who is having a hard time putting a roof over their head is not going to the dentist and getting a teeth cleaning. The problem for a family that cannot afford to buy baby formula is not signing their infant up for a school feeding program. In what world does a sophisticated government offer such solutions? I guess it is in Canada. I would remove the word “sophisticated”, however.
Canadians do not want another handout. They do not want another program. They want more freedom. They want more opportunity. They want their hard-earned money left in their pockets so they have choice, so they have dignity and so they can advance themselves and their families. That is what the government fails to see.
In my area, small businesses are the lifeblood of the community, but they are suffocating under inflation, taxation and over-regulation by the government. After years of overspending and mismanagement, the Liberal government has created an affordability crisis that Canadians from coast to coast are experiencing. When government takes on debt, and I mean 80 billion dollars' worth of debt, as in the budget, it is simply passed on to Canadians through increased taxation and increased inflation. It is Canadians who ultimately bear that. It is one of the most unkind things that the government could have possibly done to Canadians. It is cruel.
Many people ask what we would do differently as Conservatives. Let me begin with the fundamentals. Fundamentally, we believe in people. We believe they are the creators, innovators and problem solvers who will take this nation forward. We believe they are capable, resilient and ready to build a stronger country, if the government would simply get out of the way and allow them to succeed.
A Conservative government would chart a different course, one that brings home powerful paycheques by cutting waste, lowering taxes and restoring fiscal responsibility. We would reduce the debt load that is burdening Canadians. We would reward municipalities that build homes. We would enforce housing targets and we would lower construction costs. In short, we would restore hope because we believe in the Canadian people.
On that note, Canadians are not just looking for hope when it comes to affordability; they are also desperate for hope when it comes to their safety and their well-being. Again, the government is found lacking.
Violent crime is up, extortion is up, sexual assaults are up and gun crime is up. Crimes against children are out of this world, with a rate that is unprecedented. Repeat offenders are cycling in and out of jail. The member opposite scoffs as if it is not true, but he knows it is.
An hon. member: Who scoffed?
Rachael Thomas: Mr. Speaker, if only he would listen to a few of his constituents.
This is because of broken laws from the government. Criminals are being let out on the streets after serving only a fraction of their time, and sometimes their time for heinous crimes such as assault is spent in their living room, not even behind bars, thanks to the Liberal government's lackadaisical laws. Conservatives would end these policies. We would end catch-and-release. We would restore jail time for criminals. Across the country, for crying out loud, we would put victims ahead of people who commit crimes.
In my riding, we are not exempt. I have sat down with parents who have lost children to crime. I have sat down with children who have lost parents to crime. This is real in this country, and it is having a devastating effect.
Children's advocacy centres are doing incredible work, but they are insufficiently funded. There is something the government could have made an investment in but instead turned a cold shoulder to. Victims' services received cutbacks. The RCMP received cutbacks. Laws have become weaker. Criminals are being favoured. Why does the government so fundamentally believe that anyone but the victim should be stood up for?
We will continue the good fight. Many justice bills have been put forward from this side of the House calling for greater severity when it comes to heinous crimes and advocating for victims. My own private member's bill is one of them. It called for justice for sexual assault crimes and stood up for victims, making sure they receive what is theirs. We will continue that good fight.
Speaking of fight, we are pleased to see that in this budget implementation act, the government adds a clause to the Broadcasting Act to protect privacy. That is a good job. Sadly, however, Bill C-11 is a horrendous bill, so I must take this opportunity to talk about it.
It is the worst censorship legislation this country has ever seen. It likens us to places like North Korea, China and Turkey, places we would never want to become, because it controls what people can see, say and post online. It puts the government in control of how people use the Internet.
Fortunately, the Liberals have wracked themselves up in this legislation so horrendously that they have taken over two years to figure out how to implement it. Even though it passed in June 2023, it is actually still not in effect because it is such a terrible bill that they do not know what to do with it. The CRTC is confused. Court cases are happening because it is so badly blundered. I celebrate that personally because at the end of the day, it is Canadians who benefit. Bill C-11 should be scrapped altogether. The protection of Canadians' freedoms should be in place.
Budget 2025 shows Canadians exactly what the government truly is. They are the same old Liberals with the same old habits of overspending, overreaching and underdelivering. It is a horrendous budget that would do an incredible disservice to Canadians, and I will be proudly voting no.
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about believing in people. She talked about the importance of the creativity of our ancestors when they came to the country and about how they created this country. I agree with all of that, but what does she think of the fact that our budget would provide $1.7 billion for a suite of recruitment measures to recruit top-level scientists, innovators and doctors to our country? Is that a good idea, or is that, too, as she would say, ludicrous spending?
Mr. Speaker, the devil is always in the details, is it not? Doctors will come if they are respected. They are respected when regulations are put in place that respect them.
If we want to draw investment into the country, there are two big things that keep it out: taxation and regulation. The government did not need to put Canadians into debt in order to bring investment into our country. In fact, I do not actually believe its program will work.
What the government needed to do was actually cut red tape and cut back on taxes. Investment will flow when those two things happen.
Mr. Speaker, the budget relies on record spending, record debt and record optimism but absolutely no record of competence.
Given that the government cannot keep a single promise on deficits or timelines, does my colleague think that Canadians should believe a single number in the budget?
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asks a good question. Can we trust the government? When the government leads people to believe one thing but then does another, trust is broken. When the government puts Canadians further and further into debt, it results in inflation, increased taxation and cutbacks to social programs. When a government functions in that capacity, of course, trust is broken.
When a government overreaches and tries to control the Canadian people rather than believing in their potential, trust is broken. All in all, the government has functioned in such a way that Canadians really have no reason to trust it.
Mr. Speaker, we will note that the far right is alive and well in the Conservative Party. The member's speech reminds me of Joe Clark when he said that he never left the party; the party left him.
We can take a look at this particular budget. This was interesting. We actually had the Premier of Ontario, on CTV, welcoming the passage of the federal budget. He is reported to have said that no matter whether members are Conservative, NDP or Liberal, they should pass it.
I am wondering whether the member feels confident that her entire caucus has shifted as far right as she has. Does she believe that the Conservative Party is behind her, in solidarity, as one?
Mr. Speaker, if it is far right to believe in the Canadian people, their potential and their ability to achieve greatness, I guess the label fits.
It is shameful that the member opposite does not believe the same. It grieves me that the member opposite does not believe in the Canadian people, does not believe in their potential, does not believe in their ability to achieve great things. It is shameful that the member opposite would somehow try to shame me for believing those things as if it were wrong to view Canadians as the creators, innovators and problem-solvers who can actually get us to good places as a country. It is shameful—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I was told earlier that I am not a Conservative. That said, I can confirm one thing for my colleague. Some people say that the Conservatives are not as interested in centralization as the Liberals are.
We saw an example of centralization in housing. We asked for the funds to be transferred to the Quebec government, with no strings attached, but the federal government is centralizing things even more with its Build Canada Homes program.
What does my colleague think about that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, what we have to account for is this: We have a government that does not believe in the Canadian people, past, present or future, as revealed by the member's question today. He is scolding me for holding those beliefs and for celebrating the nation I love. That is shameful.
Mr. Speaker, I believe in Canada, in Canadians, in our industries and in the budget. This budget positions us for the future and meets this moment. It protects Canada's sovereignty and safety, and it meets our global commitments. It is protecting and growing our economy. It is meeting our climate goals. It is building major projects, community infrastructure and homes. It is protecting important services and making life more affordable for Canadians.
More than 75% of our actions this year are to respond to significant global economic shifts. Protecting Canada's sovereignty and meeting our global commitments are critical. Canadian defence experts are very clear: There are several pressing challenges facing Canada, including immediate threats in the Arctic. As the assistant deputy minister Wendy Hadwen told the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, “it's not peace time.”
We must meet Canada's 2% NATO commitment, and we must protect ourselves here at home. That is why we are making the largest investment in Canadian defence and security in decades, providing nearly $82 billion over five years to position our Canadian Armed Forces for success in an increasingly challenging environment.
At home, we are securing our borders and ensuring community safety by hiring 1,000 new RCMP officers and hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers. That defence spending is more than security; it is creating jobs for Canadian workers through our defence industrial strategy. It is catalyzing economic growth and innovation. It is strengthening our collective resilience and increasing the capacity and competitiveness of Canadian suppliers. This contributes to protecting Canada's economy.
Let us be very clear: We are in a trade war. Our largest trading partner is openly attacking key industries. It is creating a lot of uncertainty, and it is tough on Guelph families, where one in five families relies directly on a manufacturing job. We are the fourth-highest exporter to the U.S. per capita and one of the cities in Canada that are most vulnerable to tariffs. This government cares about those families. I do too. That is why I sit on the industry committee and chair the auto caucus.
Budget 2025 would help protect what we have. It helps us chart a course, a more resilient path forward, with $5 billion in supports for affected sectors to save jobs and industries, as well as the regional tariff response initiative to support tariff-affected businesses of all sizes in all affected sectors. Many Guelph businesses have already applied.
There is funding for expanding EI and work-share programs, with benefits and eligibility enhanced to provide additional support if people need it. It is true that Canadians would rather have a great job than expanded EI, but it is there if they need it, and so too is a new re-skilling package for up to 50,000 workers.
However, the key to more great jobs is to help Canadian businesses invest at home and attract foreign investment. We believe in Canadian business, so budget 2025 would introduce the productivity superdeduction, a new tax incentive to help businesses write off a larger share of capital investments immediately, making it easier to invest in machinery, technology, growth and clean tech. This 100% first-year writeoff for manufacturing or processing machinery and equipment is essential for Guelph manufacturers and food processors. They can immediately expense clean energy generation and energy conservation equipment, as well as zero-emission vehicles. This is great for our climate commitment and good for businesses to reduce their costs.
The productivity superdeduction brings Canada's effective tax rate to 5% lower than that of the U.S. and 12% lower than the G7 average. It gives our manufacturers and processors an exceptional advantage. The accelerated depreciation was a recommendation I heard when I held business round tables, and we heard it at the industry committee during our study on productivity.
To support those innovative businesses, budget 2025 also introduces the expansion and acceleration of the scientific research and experimental development tax credit, or SR&ED. It also opens more procurement pathways for small and medium-sized businesses, which constitute 98% of all employers in Canada.
This growth and innovation can be green. That is why we are also launching Canada's new climate competitive strategy. With clean economy investment tax credits, we can supercharge affordable net-zero energy projects, turning Canada's natural wealth into lasting prosperity while protecting the planet.
We are delivering the clean electricity investment tax credit to expand our clean power grid. We are enhancing tax credits for clean technologies, clean-tech manufacturing and carbon capture. We will also finalize enhanced methane regulations for the oil and gas sector and for landfills, update clean fuel regulations and mobilize capital for the transition to net zero through sustainable finance tools. These steps will cut emissions faster and give Canadian companies the certainty they need to invest in clean tech.
We can see the climate commitment through Canada's major projects, such as the wind west Atlantic energy project and the much-anticipated Alto high-speed rail from Toronto to Quebec City, which was a priority for Guelph's active transportation advocates at an event I attended earlier this fall.
Closer to home, budget 2025 would build homes and vital infrastructure, with an investment of $13 billion over five years. It will attract investment, focus on innovative construction. This could double the speed of construction, reduce costs and lower emissions. It will protect existing affordable housing through the Canada rental protection fund. It will provide $1 billion for transitional and supportive housing for people who are homeless and at risk of homelessness.
We have already met with supportive housing providers, such as Kendal, Wyndham House, the Guelph Community Health Centre, Stonehenge and Stepping Stone, and with the co-op housing sector to talk about opportunities. Guelph has very strong leadership in supportive housing and will no doubt have great projects to come.
Budget 2025 is about building stronger communities. As a former city councillor, I know how essential infrastructure is, and I know what that infrastructure backlog looks like, at least in Ontario. First, budget 2025 proposes $17 billion over 10 years to support provincial and territorial infrastructure projects and priorities. Second, and of vast interest nationally, $5 billion of that would go to a health infrastructure fund to help provinces and territories build and upgrade hospitals, emergency rooms, urgent care facilities and medical schools. Canadians have been asking for this. Third, we would create a direct delivery stream, with $6 billion over 10 years to support regionally significant projects, large building retrofits, climate adaptation and community infrastructure.
The Canada community-building fund will also provide nearly $28 billion over 10 years and $3 billion per year, ongoing, to support local infrastructure projects that make neighbourhoods vibrant and livable. I am already taking a lot of calls on that funding.
Members may ask, who is going to build these major projects, homes and infrastructure? We are investing in people, with $75 million over three years to expand a union training and innovation program, while creating workforce alliances to bring together employers, unions and industry groups. We are going to recognize international credentials faster. We are investing to attract the best talent in the world to our universities. We are investing in Canada summer jobs, the youth employment and skills strategy, the student work placement program and the youth climate corps. We are staying true to our values of being there for one another when times are tough.
The morning after the budget, I heard an economist on The Morning Edition describe the budget. He said that the language is honest and stark. He added that it is changing the direction of the ship without throwing anybody off. That is a brilliant analogy.
Budget 2025 would protect all the essential services that people rely on. We are adding the school nutrition program. We are making it permanent. We are cutting income taxes by 1%, eliminating the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes under $1 million. It is ambitious; it is leadership, and we have the wherewithal to do it.
Budget 2025 is more than a fiscal plan. It is a blueprint for Canada to meet this moment. If members believe that we need to meet our NATO commitments and properly fund our military; that we have to protect our industries and support our workers during this trade war; that we need to boost productivity, attraction, growth and retention of Canadian business; that we need clean energy; that we need to do something about housing availability and affordability; that we urgently need more tradespeople; and that we need to protect our social programs, then they must support this budget. We are protecting our country, our economy, our planet and our people.
Before I go to questions and comments, I just want to remind members that Standing Order 16(2) still applies. Members should not cross between the member who is speaking and the Chair. There was a member who just did that.
Questions and comments, the hon. member from Middlesex—London.
Mr. Speaker, we continue to hear from the Liberals that this is a generational investment, but my constituents in Middlesex—London say they see it as generational debt.
I would ask the member opposite what she would like to say to those young people out there, the university students, the college students, the apprentices, those who are still in training, who cannot afford to pay rent, who are still stuck in their parents' basement, as well as to the parents whose 28- and 26-year-olds are still living at home.
Could the member look them in the eye and tell them why it is okay to have generational debt? What is she going to do to give them hope for a better future in this country?
Mr. Speaker, I would tell them to ask Doug Ford why he cut rent control. I would tell them that we are investing heavily in trades and supporting them, that we are investing in Canadian business, that we are retaining and growing important industries, and that we are going to invest in a green, clean planet for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the various strategies for trying to buy votes.
In the last election, the Liberals provided compensation for the carbon tax for a period in which Canadians did not have to pay that tax at all. The Liberals did not provide compensation in Quebec and British Columbia, saying that those provinces did not pay any carbon tax. However, there was no carbon tax during the period targeted by the government's measure. Quebec was deprived of $814 million.
What does my colleague think about that?
Mr. Speaker, I would say that nothing of the kind happened.
When Guelph's constituents voted, they voted for a Prime Minister with a global reputation who had an exciting plan, a plan to finally invest in Canadians. People were feeling really optimistic.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I know tariffs have really affected the auto sector in the member's riding. In my riding, tariffs have really affected the forestry industry. She talked specifically about the regional tariff response initiative and how businesses and employees in her riding had benefited from this.
Can the member give us some more specific examples of how that has benefited people in her riding?
Mr. Speaker, the regional tariff response initiative is very helpful for any business in any sector that has been affected by American tariffs. It can be that it suddenly has capacity on the floor that it had not anticipated or it needs to retool or reorient. In addition to that, there is a lot of support from the Business Development Bank of Canada and the federal government.
People should reach out to their member of Parliament and FedDev for those supports, because they are available. We will not let them down.
Mr. Speaker, the member talked about youth unemployment as though it just happened out of nowhere. This summer, youth unemployment was the highest it has been in our country in 30 or 40 years.
I am wondering what policies the government brought forward that added to youth unemployment, because it did not just happen by accident. Why are so many young people in this country finding it so hard to find employment if everything is going so well?
Mr. Speaker, I care about youth unemployment. I have a 21-year-old and a 19-year-old, and we hear from their friends about some of these challenges. Part of the challenge is that the tariffs are creating a lot of uncertainty, so nobody is adding a shift or expanding.
For young people who are interested in the trades, there is a lot that is promising in this budget. We are helping companies invest in themselves and giving them some certainty so they can create those jobs. We can have great careers in a number of different industries.
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to join and add my comments to what is a disastrous budget 2025.
The member for Winnipeg North may be surprised by this, but I find it hard to believe that the Prime Minister can outspend even Justin Trudeau. Mr. Trudeau added more debt to our country than all other prime ministers combined. Then this new guy walks in and is like, “Hold my beer. If you think that is spending, I will double Trudeau's promises.”
The Liberals got elected on the fact that this new Liberal Prime Minister, kind of the same as the old Liberal prime minister, was a financial wizard. He was going to control spending. He was going to deal with Donald Trump. He was the master negotiator who was going to get a deal done by July 21. I remember; everyone remembers that he said that.
I want the member for Winnipeg North to know that this will be my most factual speech. Everything I say is a commitment that the Prime Minister or one of his ministers made.
I was here in 2023, when the current finance minister promised grocery prices would go down by Thanksgiving. That was in 2023. The member can shake his head, but that is true. I just have an MNP report that says grocery prices this year, in 2025, are up $800 per family. That is $800 per family, according to the MNP report. Once again, we have a promise made but a promise not kept.
Another promise that was made, and I have heard nothing about this and there is nothing in the budget about it, is that they were going to break down interprovincial trade barriers. It was a promise made by this Prime Minister. I have actually asked a couple of ministers, a couple of times, to break down where they are at and what they have done to make interprovincial trade easier in this country. I have talked to a few of my counterparts in different provinces. There has been no progress made on that.
The Liberals said they were going to unleash the economy, another promise by the Prime Minister. I have not seen or heard of any change to interprovincial trade barriers since the Prime Minister made that commitment.
I do want to go back to the fact that the Prime Minister promised to get spending under control. As I said, I am going to use his own standards: It is a promise made but a promise not kept. The Prime Minister promised to keep the deficit to $62 billion. It is at $78 billion, almost $80 billion. He promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. It is rising, and so is inflation. It will continue to rise.
He promised to spend less. He is spending $90 billion more than his campaign budget committed to. That actually adds $5,400 more in inflationary spending for each household. He promised more investment. The budget reveals that investment is collapsing.
I always find it amazing that the Liberals say they are going to invest more, that they will take taxpayers' dollars and decide which businesses should get it or not. There is always a follow-up question to that. Why do they need to invest more? What happened to private sector investment in this country? Why is the private sector not investing more in Canada?
I see a little quizzical look from one of my Liberal colleagues. Nutrien decided to invest $1 billion in Washington to add more capacity, instead of in Vancouver. The members across could not answer why they would invest $1 billion in the U.S. instead of in Canada right now, when they are headquartered in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. It is because they do not think we have a dependable infrastructure or transportation system anymore. We lost $1 billion of investment, and the Liberals just shrugged. That was a Canadian company.
Why is it that TC Energy is investing in pipelines in America but not Canada? Where is that private investment going? It is going south. Why is that? It is because they do not believe in the regulations. We have Bill C-69, which the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional. The Liberals have still not done anything about it. We have the shipping ban off the port of Vancouver, which I think had a fair bit to do with Nutrien making the decision to invest in Washington and not Vancouver.
We have companies that will continue to look at Canada and see it as an unattractive place to invest, and that is because of government regulation and policy. When we hear Liberals talking about the investment the government will make, this is because they have scared away all the private investment and there is an atmosphere of uncertainty around investment in this country. They are going to take more and more taxpayers' dollars and throw them at projects, because they cannot convince private companies to invest in Canada anymore. That is a sad state of affairs, but that is where we are.
Imagine if, back in 2015, we had been able to see our country in 10 years' time and seen that in 2025 there would be the highest number of people in Canada's history who were using a food bank. Is that where we thought we would end up after 10 years of a Liberal government? The Liberals said they cared. I remember Justin Trudeau, with his hand over his heart, saying that the government was going to take on debt so Canadians did not have to. This was on national television, and he had this Care Bear stare that I remember very vividly.
Who do the Liberals think pays government debt? There is no magic money tree out behind the PMO, although sometimes I wish there was. The only way the government gets rid of debt is by taxing and taking more money from Canadians who earn a paycheque, or from companies' earnings, each and every day. Every time the Liberals say they are going to spend money so Canadians do not have to, Canadians need to realize they are taking that money out of their pockets. It snowed here yesterday, and it was a little chilly in Ottawa. It was so cold I actually saw the member for Winnipeg North with his hands in his own pockets for a change. He continues to nickel-and-dime Canadians to death.
The Liberals bring out their flagship program, the school lunch program. I have a big issue with it, because it actually is not feeding the number of kids they say it is, first of all, since 90% of kids do not get fed by this program. There are five million kids in this country, and the program is going to feed 400,000, which it has not done yet.
I also have a problem that the flagship program is giving food stamps to kids. The Liberals have run the government so poorly that parents cannot afford lunches and to feed their kids. Why is that? It is because they continue to layer tax upon tax on parents. Hard-working parents, after they get off work, instead of going to the grocery store now go to the food bank. That is what this country has come to after 10 years of their terrible fiscal policies and their inability to create more economic activity through the private sector.
I look at my kids, who are eight, 10 and 12 years old. My son was here with me a couple weeks ago, and he always asks, “Dad, why don't you stand up and say what you actually feel?” I say, “Son, there are some parliamentary language rules, and I am making sure I am following the rules,” but I am very passionate about this, because I believe there is nothing more that Canadian parents want than the ability to support their family and feed their own kids. If we took a poll, there would not be a family who said that they think the government should be the one that feeds their kids lunch.
Why can we not live in a country and work toward a country where parents have that ability? That is what I want for the next generation. There is a poll that shows that only 8% of Canadians, and members should hear this, think the next generation is going to be better off. People are losing faith in our country. Can members believe that? I never thought the next generation would be worse off than our generation. Something we should all aspire to is handing over a country where a person can do better than their parents. Every parent wants their kids to do better than they have done.
Under these 10 years with the Liberal government at the helm, people have lost faith in that. Youth do not think they can buy a home. Eight out of 10 youth do not think they are ever going to buy a home in this country. I never thought Canada would be in this kind of shape, where Canadians are working hard and trying to get ahead, and the government layers tax upon tax upon tax on them and makes life unaffordable.
This budget does the same thing. There is going to be $361 billion of debt added to this country over the next five years. Debt payments are going to go from $55 billion to $75 billion, which is exponentially higher than health transfers. It is a horrendous indictment and shows the failure of the Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asked a question earlier about what the federal government was going to do to eliminate interprovincial trade barriers. There is good news, since the federal government, with the support of the opposition, removed federal interprovincial trade barriers by Canada Day this year. As of just six days ago, tens of thousands of goods across Canada's 14 jurisdictions will soon be freely traded after an agreement was signed between all provinces, territories and the federal government to allow businesses to sell their products across Canada. It is called the Canadian mutual recognition agreement, and I think that is fantastic.
Would you thank your premier for me, because I think it is great?
I will remind the member to address her comments through the Chair.
The hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.
Mr. Speaker, if it is going to happen, sure, but this is a Liberal kind of trick that they play. They say it is going to happen. There was an MOU signed. It is going to happen. They signed it on July 21.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Warren Steinley: Did you say that you will send me a press release, because I believe Liberal press releases?
Mr. Speaker, if it is going to happen, I would be happy to congratulate them on breaking down some interprovincial trade barriers. I want Canada to succeed. I believe in Canada as much, or more, than every one of those Liberals, but they think they can wrap themselves in the flag when it is convenient.
They say we will be Canada strong. Canada has never been in a weaker position, and it is because of your terrible fiscal policies.
Again, I will remind members to address their comments through the Chair, and we will avoid this crosstalk and the challenges with going back and forth.
[Translation]
We will go back to questions and comments.
The hon. member for La Pointe-de-l'Île.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Liberal strategy to buy votes.
For example, during the last election campaign, the government handed out $3.7 billion in election goodies in the form of a carbon tax rebate for a period when the carbon tax was not even collected.
We in Quebec certainly find this shocking, since $814 million of our tax dollars went to fund these election goodies.
What does my colleague think about that?
[English]
Mr. Speaker, we have been against the carbon tax for years, and now the Liberals have flip-flopped on it and decided it was politically unpopular. It was still their flagship policy for 10 years, and they flip-flopped like that because they will do and say anything to get elected. When it comes to the carbon tax and making sure we have affordability in this country, they should scrap the industrial carbon tax. They should scrap the food packaging tax. They should scrap the clean fuel standards, carbon tax 2.0, to make food affordable again.
Mr. Speaker, that was a great speech by my seatmate and colleague from Saskatchewan.
We saw that the previous prime minister Justin Trudeau was declining in popularity at a dramatic rate, so much so that he even had to step down. He was planning to spend $154 billion over the next five years and to add that to our national debt. The current Prime Minister is planning to spend, over the next five years, $321 billion and to add that to our national debt. It is hard to believe and even hard to say.
Does the member believe the Prime Minister is worse than Justin Trudeau?
Mr. Speaker, that is a tough but fair question. I guess the proof is in the pudding. He is spending more money than Justin Trudeau.
I want to add one thing about what they are spending money on. I want to talk about Regina—Lewvan. It is the home of the RCMP depot, and I hope people realize the government is cutting $98 million from the RCMP budget. It is asking our national police service to do more with less funding, and then the Liberals talk about adding 1,000 new RCMP members, which is going to cost $120 million, but they are giving them zero dollars for that. They are cutting the RCMP budget by $98 million, and then asking them to find $120 million over the next four years to train 1,000 more officers. It is shameful, and they should reimplement the budget the RCMP needs to keep Canadians safe.
Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to rise today on behalf of the people of Mississauga East—Cooksville to speak strongly in support of Bill C-15, the budget implementation act. This is a bill that reflects exactly what Canadians have been asking for: a government focused on building, protecting and empowering our country and our people.
When I walk through the neighbourhoods in my riding, whether on Kirwin Avenue or Dundas Street, or near the Burnhamthorpe Community Centre or Mississauga Valley Community Centre, I hear from all of my constituents, and members will hear those people's voices in this speech. I will share their stories and those of the thousands and millions of stakeholders who have brought their input into this budget.
People want the chance to have an affordable home, to find meaningful work, to raise their children in safety and to see their community grow with confidence. Budget 2025 would do just that. It is our government's plan to build Canada strong. The Prime Minister said it best when he said that the world has changed, and Canada must build the future we want for ourselves. We cannot sit back and wait for it. We must build. We must build it boldly and now. This is not a small vision, it is a generational project.
We are building homes, infrastructure and an economy by Canadians for Canadians. This budget shifts Canada from a posture of uncertainty to one of ambition. It makes generational investments to build the major infrastructure that underpins our prosperity, builds homes at a speed and scale our country has not seen in generations, builds industries that create good-paying careers and builds a stronger, more resilient, more independent Canadian economy.
In Mississauga East—Cooksville, housing is top of mind: homes, condos, apartments, co-ops and affordable housing. I recently met Maria, a single mom working two jobs to keep up with her rent. She told me, “Peter, I love this community, and I want to continue to find a way to stay here and grow my family here.” Well, I want Maria to stay and grow her family in our community, and this budget is designed for Maria and families like hers.
Through Build Canada Homes, the government is doubling the pace of homebuilding over the next decade, using partnerships with Mississauga, municipalities, Ontario, provinces and the private sector to move faster and be stronger. Homes will be built with Canadian materials, Canadian labour and innovative construction that reduces delays and lowers costs. The Prime Minister put it clearly: “We will build Canadian and buy Canadian...creating new orders”. We will also create new jobs and new opportunities for workers and businesses across our great country.
In Mississauga East—Cooksville, our community knows the value of good infrastructure. Transit, roads, schools, hospitals and water systems are the foundation of our daily life. Budget 2025 provides $51 billion over 10 years through the build communities strong fund to strengthen the local infrastructure Canadians rely on most. It is a fund that is nation building and that empowers Canadians with faster commutes, better connections and stronger communities.
The Federation of Canadian Municipalities welcomes this budget. It says that budget 2025 “recognizes a core reality: municipal infrastructure is essential to economic infrastructure...critical to...housing delivery [and] economic strength”. For Mississauga, what does this mean? It means safer streets, modern community centres, improved transit and the infrastructure needed to build more homes and support more families.
We are attracting more investment and building Canada's economic strength. However, the world is more uncertain than at any time in recent history. Trade patterns are shifting. Old assumptions are eroding. The Prime Minister said that, in the face of global uncertainty, Canada must focus on what we can control. We must build the strongest, most independent, most competitive economy in the G7. Budget 2025 does exactly that by unlocking $1 trillion in investment.
Just today, we heard the Prime Minister talk about a $70-billion investment pledged by the UAE to Canada. This ambitious plan unleashes this $1 trillion in public and private investments over five years by accelerating nation-building projects; fast-tracking approvals through the Major Projects Office; building the roads, bridges, rail and trade corridors that we need; supporting critical minerals and advanced manufacturing; and modernizing ports and transportation networks. The first wave of our major projects will drive more than $60 billion into the economy and create thousands of well-paying jobs.
The Mining Association of Canada said that budget 2025 enhances the competitiveness of Canadian mining and accelerates critical mineral investments. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce said budget 2025 helps set the conditions for productivity and investment. Canada needs bold action, and this budget recognizes the urgency.
This is about taking back control of our economic destiny. This is about building an economy by Canadians for Canadians. Budget 2025 is designed to give Canadians real opportunities, meaningful opportunities and a more affordable life. It is about building better careers and a stronger workforce by investing in our people's skills.
That is why the government is launching a nationwide re-skilling initiative for up to 50,000 workers, extending and modernizing employment insurance, creating digital jobs and training platforms with private sector partners. The workforce alliance would unite our labour unions, employers and industries to modernize that skills development.
The Canadian Labour Congress has praised this approach by saying Canadian unions welcome the billions invested in homebuilding infrastructure, skills training and the new $1,100 tax credit for our PSWs.
I think of Keisha in Mississauga East—Cooksville, who is a dedicated personal support worker, caring for seniors in our community. She told me, “I don't need much, but I just need a little bit of help.” The new PSW tax credit, that $1,100, is designed for people like Keisha, who give so much of themselves to our community.
Bill C-15 would deliver major steps forward toward fairness and affordability. It would exempt the Canada disability benefit from income calculations, expand the disability support deduction, strengthen the consumer protections in the financial sector and modernize access to banking, credit unions and digital payments. This is all lowering costs for people and giving people more control over their financial future.
We live in an era of rising threats such as fraud, organized crime, illegal smuggling and global instability. The Prime Minister said we must protect our communities, our borders and our way of life. In this budget, safer communities and stronger borders are presented in hiring 1,000 new CBSA officers, expanding border intelligence and detection systems, launching a national fraud strategy, and creating a dedicated financial crimes agency.
The National Police Federation has said that these measures demonstrate a commitment to its members and to safer communities. CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, affirms that stronger fraud protections, quicker access to funds and supports for caregivers will significantly improve the financial security of Canadian seniors.
In Cooksville, Applewood and across Mississauga, families want to know that their streets are safe and their children are protected. These measures would help ensure exactly that. The budget would strengthen the systems Canadians rely on for community well-being, health care, research and community supports.
In Mississauga, we are building the biggest, most innovative hospital in Canada right now. That hospital will take care of all the families in my riding and all the families in the ridings across Mississauga. Beyond that, it will take care of the greater Toronto area. That is how large this hospital will be. Within this budget, there are a number of investments for health care that will help with that hospital's development.
When it comes to helping our most needy, the food bank welcome targeted, affordable measures that will help ease the pressures on families.
This is a transformational moment. The world is changing and Canada must choose whether to wait or to build. I say we need to build. That is what we are doing. We are building the homes Canadians deserve, building the industries of the future and building safer communities. It is building opportunities and fairness for workers, and it builds confidence in our country and ourselves.
This is Canada strong, built by Canadians for Canadians. To my colleagues on all sides of the aisle who are here, let us build a Canada that is more prosperous, more secure, more united and more confident than ever before. Let us pass this bill. Let us build this future. Let us build Canada strong.
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked a lot about housing. What I am hearing from the residents of Middlesex—London is that housing has become completely unaffordable.
The Liberals talk about taking GST off for first-time homebuyers. The Conservatives' plan was to take the GST off all new home builds, because the reality is that it is very difficult to find homes under a million dollars now. A lot of people have purchased a home at some point in their life, and now they are looking at expanding their family and trying to purchase a larger home, perhaps, to house their family.
I am just wondering if the member would comment on why the budget falls so short and why it does not include all new home builds with regard to the GST exemption.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my hon. colleague has some interest in housing. The Conservatives had gotten out of the housing business. It is the Liberal government that has brought housing back to the wonderful House of Commons.
Within our budget, we are helping, in terms of those who are buying new homes, the new homebuyers, by taking the GST off. I am glad to see that the Province of Ontario has followed suit. This will save new homebuyers a great deal of money.
We are investing in all housing. That includes co-ops, affordable housing and purpose-built rentals. It is right across the spectrum of housing. This is an ambitious plan to build the most housing we have ever built here in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, my colleague said in his speech that we must focus on what we can control.
The Council of Canadian Academies has confirmed that Canada is experiencing a major research and innovation crisis. Investment is falling. There is a brain drain. Productivity is stagnating, and the federal system is falling behind the rest of the world.
What is there for research and innovation in the most recent federal budget? There is a 2% cut. There is no increase to offset inflation and no support for the next generation of scientists. Do we know what else his government is saying? It is speaking out of both sides of its mouth when it says that it wants to be the best and a global leader in innovation.
I have a plant at home. If I do not water it, it may not grow.
I would like my colleague to explain how he can say that he wants to be the best when he is not even making the research investments it takes to be the best in the world in terms of innovation.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I patently disagree. That is a false statement that the member has made. The government is investing in innovation. I have spoken to people from many industries. They talk about the SR&ED program, how we are enhancing that program and what it means, and about the investment tax credits we are providing to businesses to accelerate them. That is all done through research and development, through innovation. This is the type of investments that we are seeing—
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I encourage my colleague to reread the budget. Research funding is being cut by 2% at the three granting agencies.
He says that I am stating falsehoods. I think it is up to him to take another look at things.
I thank the hon. member, but that is a point of debate.
The hon. member for Mississauga East—Cooksville.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, again, innovation is so important to the budget, and that is why we are investing in research and development, investing in companies and investing in people: to be able to innovate and to create not only the jobs of today but also the jobs of tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if I can pick up on the generational investments the member made reference to and just go a little bit beyond that. Coming out of the last federal election, as the member will know, the Prime Minister talked a great deal about expanding trade opportunities beyond the Canada-U.S. border. It is really quite impressive what is taking place in South Africa, the United Arab Emirates, India, Korea, Philippines, England and Northern Ireland. These are all places in which we are getting substantial commitments to carry forward the idea of expanding trade opportunities.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts on why that is an important thing for us to be doing.
Mr. Speaker, Canada is a trading nation. Diversification is our tool to be able to weather any storm and to make us more resilient. The member is quite right; we have agreements with Europe, with Asia and with countries around the world. We have the most trade agreements of any G7 country, but we have to continue to open up even more opportunities. The member mentioned many countries. Indonesia is another one that we just signed a free trade agreement with.
We brought a free trade agreement to the House, the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement. The Conservatives voted against it. It is unbelievable that they would be against trade, because we are a trading nation, and trade is so important for us.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the hard-working families, farmers and forgotten rural communities of Bow River in southern Alberta to speak against a budget that will make life more expensive for every single Canadian. The government has delivered a spending plan that will drive up the cost of food, drive up the cost of housing, drive up the cost of energy and dig this country deeper and deeper into debt than at any time in our history, and for what? It would be for more bureaucracy, more waste, more costly programs that fail the people the Liberals claim to help, and yet another round of broken promises from the Prime Minister and his finance minister.
Let us start with the basics. The finance minister promised Canadians a $62-billion deficit, but instead the deficit is now $78 billion. I remember a time when a $3-billion, $4-billion or $5-billion deficit was dramatic and worthy of bringing the government down. Now it is almost as if money means nothing anymore.
The finance minister promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio. He promised to rein in government spending, but instead he is spending $90 billion more, an equivalent of $5,400 in new inflationary spending for every household in the country. He promised to work with municipalities to cut homebuilding taxes in half and to get more homes built, but the budget breaks that promise too, making housing more expensive and more unattainable for young Canadians. He promised stronger investment, yet the budget reveals that business investment is collapsing. These are not small misunderstandings; they are broken commitments that have real consequences for real families.
On the subject of consequences, economic consequences, nothing is more destructive to jobs and investment than the government's looming oil and gas emissions cap. Further illustrating the disconnect between the government's projections and reality, ECCC's own modelling assumed that the cap would reduce production by only 0.7%. How do we become a global energy superpower by reducing production by 0.7%? That is the first fallacy.
However, as Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot confirmed to the environment committee, the modelling was already flawed. It relied on overly optimistic scenarios from the Canadian energy regulator and the International Energy Agency that have not matched actual market trend. In reality, the independent estimates from The Conference Board of Canada and Deloitte suggest production could fall by as much as 11%, a figure that aligns much more closely with observed trends.
Even the Parliamentary Budget Officer's 5.4% projection appears conservative in light of the current data. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also reported that the emissions cap would cost over 40,000 jobs and shrink nominal GDP by $20.5 billion U.S. by 2032.
This is a stark discrepancy, and it indicates the government is downplaying the true economic impact of its own policy. It is putting Canadian energy investment at risk, it is putting jobs at risk and, as Dr. Exner-Pirot warned, the cap acts as a production cap in disguise, driving capital out of the country and sending good-paying Canadian jobs to jurisdictions with weaker environmental standards.
The budget hints at delays, and it softens the language, but it does not go nearly far enough. If Canadians want Canada to be an energy superpower, and if we want to attract capital instead of driving it away, the emissions cap must be taken off the table. Only then can we restore investor confidence, protect thousands of jobs and unleash the full potential of Canadian energy.
One of the most shocking features of the Prime Minister's budget is that just the interest on the national debt will reach $55.6 billion next year. That is a hard number to let sink in. This means that we would spend more just to service the debt than we spend on the entire Canada health transfer. It is more than the entire GST revenue; the equivalent is that every single dollar collected through GST would now go straight to a banker or a bondholder rather than to a doctor, a nurse or patient care. That would be the true cost of the government's reckless spending.
Einstein once talked about the magic of compound interest, but the current government is showing us the magic of compound spending. Under the Prime Minister, the federal debt has soared to $1.35 trillion, and the budget adds another $321 billion over the next five years, more than double what the previous government would have added over the same period. Canadians are paying for runaway debt. Taking five dollars out of a taxpayer's pocket and giving two dollars back as a handout is a broken proposition, and it devalues the contract a government has with the people.
The budget also fails Canadian farmers and rural communities. Major farm organizations have been clear in their criticism. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture stated that while the government included some measures, the budget is “a missed opportunity to address some of our sector's most pressing challenges such as a permanently increased interest free threshold for the Advance Payments Program, [dealing with] labour disruptions in the food supply chain, [and] protecting farmland”.
Modernizing the Canada Grain Act should also be a priority. Grain Growers of Canada warned that “without extended interswitching, farmers lose a competitive tool that [keeps] costs in check and performance accountable” in terms of grain and commodity transport.
The Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada called the budget a failure on food security, stating bluntly that “this budget fails to deliver on the government's earlier promises” and that it falls short on all counts.
Moreover, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency modernization measures do not go far enough. For too long, the agency has shifted responsibility between itself and Health Canada and Agriculture Canada, depending on where the pressure was coming from to perform, and it has left farmers without accountability or timely action. Without structural reform, the CFIA will continue to hide behind bureaucracy rather than provide the certainty and transparency farmers need in order to operate efficiently and safely. Canadian farmers, the ag industry and the public demand it. The incremental digital upgrades planned cannot fix the systemic issue.
The government's approach leaves Canadian farmers exposed to higher costs, excessive regulation and competitive disadvantage. Until the industrial carbon tax is removed, bureaucratic barriers are reduced and the CFIA is truly reformed to act decisively on agriculture issues, this budget will continue to fail rural Canadians.
Nowhere is the impact of the budget more painfully felt than at the grocery store. Canadians are already facing one of the worst affordability crises in living memory, and the budget only makes it worse. Food inflation came in at 70% higher than the Bank of Canada's target. Families are spending $800 dollars more this year than they did last year, just to feed themselves. The prices of basic necessities such as meat, coffee and baby formula are all skyrocketing. Beef is up more than 12%; processed meat, more than 5%; coffee, more than 27%; infant formula, 6.6%; and soup, 5.3%.
These are not luxuries; these are staples. When the cost of basic staples goes up, everything else in life becomes harder for working families. While the government finds new ways to tax food at the checkout counter, it continues taxing food at the farm gate as well.
Rural communities know the reality: The government's refusal to scrap the industrial carbon tax on fertilizer and farm equipment, and its doubling down on it in the budget, is breaking Canadian farmers. Farmers in my riding and across Canada have pleaded with the government to end the carbon tax on growing food. Instead, the budget doubles down. It keeps the carbon tax on barns, irrigation, grain drying, fertilizer production, tractors and combines. When we tax the people who grow the food, we invariably raise the cost of the food they produce.
The consequences are real. These increases hurt rural Canadians, seniors on fixed incomes, single parents, and young families trying to get ahead. They are the result of high taxes, high deficits and high regulation from a government that refuses to listen.
Conservatives believe in a simple principle: If we want to make life affordable, we cut taxes, cut waste, build homes, unleash industry and remove the bureaucratic barriers that hold Canadians back. Instead the Prime Minister and his finance minister are choosing the opposite path: bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation, higher deficits and more debt, and Canadians are paying the price.
Canadians deserve a government focused on lowering costs, not on raising them. They deserve a government that believes in farmers, families and workers, not in big bureaucracies and high taxes. They deserve a government that respects the value of a dollar and the dignity of work.
Conservatives are ready to deliver.
Mr. Speaker, as we wind down the debate on the budget today, I would remind those who are following the debate that the election was just a number of months ago, and we have a Prime Minister and a government that are focused on building a healthier and stronger economy.
At the end of the day, we have set the goal of making Canada the strongest country in the G7. We have seen so many initiatives taken by the Prime Minister and the government since then, whether it is Bill C-5 and the Building Canada Act; the amount of co-operation we have seen from provinces, municipalities and others; or a budget that shows that we as a government see the value of investing in Canadians and Canada, which is why we see the numbers that we see. That is why we have a Prime Minister who is aggressively pursuing trading opportunities that go beyond the Canada-U.S. border, and why, I believe, we have received the type of support we have for this federal budget.
Can the member opposite clearly explain why he does not support the budget?
Mr. Speaker, I am shocked the member opposite did not state that I was right, like far right, even more right.
An adage I have from when I was working in the field in the oil and gas industry is that, as one of the engineering staff, “The engineer is here, and he is here to help” was the biggest fallacy and joke in the system. A more poignant adage is “I am from the government. I am here to help and I am going to make it better.” That never happens.
I think the fundamental disconnect is that the government needs to get out of the way of private industry doing what it does best, which is, make the economy better.
Mr. Speaker, I sit here and listen to the questions coming from the Liberal side of the House. They are always talking about investing in Canada and Canadians, but they fail to mention their investments in Europe, specifically $500 million to the European Space Agency. By coincidence, the campus is owned by Brookfield, which is connected to the Prime Minister of Canada, and there are more examples of the Liberals hiding their investments internationally while people in Canada are suffering and going to food banks.
Could the member expand on that?
Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the disconnect between our position and the Liberal position. The self-serving nature, apparently, of the transactions taking place have a very bad perception. The reality is that the Liberals are not going to help the Canadians on the street, day to day.
We need to get government out of the way, programs reduced and taxes reduced so that people keep more money in their pockets and can spend it where they choose to, which is predominantly, first and foremost, at the grocery store.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Bow River, and I was really struck by one of the answers he gave to another member. He said we need to let private companies do what they do best, which is stimulate the economy.
Under the Liberals, the federal government paid $34 billion for the Trans Mountain pipeline, which was more than four times the original price. Now, what news are we expecting on Thursday? Another pipeline, possibly publicly funded.
I would like my colleague to clarify whether he believes that a single penny of public money should be used to line the pockets of wealthy oil and gas companies that are producing oil for export, not for local consumption.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for an opportunity to address this issue in the House for ages.
The government's exorbitant price for the Trans Mountain pipeline had a direct correlation to its jeopardizing of the project and its exposure to a suit by the private proponent that was going to build that pipeline for a quarter of the cost, or less, of what the government spent.
I do not believe, and most Conservatives do not believe, that the government should be investing in private infrastructure. It should not be investing and picking favourites. It needs to set the rules, make sure there is a level playing field and allow industry to do what industry does best.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to stand up and lend my support to Bill C-15, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 1.
I have been in this Parliament for the past 10 years, and we have had so many opportunities to make sure that our economy is doing well and thriving where we need it to. Over these past six months, I have noticed that the Conservatives talk a great game about how we are not supporting our kids. Why would they vote against the national school food program? They say we are not supporting our kids. Why would they not support the early learning and child care program and $10-a-day child care? They say we are not cutting taxes for our middle class. Why would they not support the middle class taxes that we have cut in these past six months?
This budget speaks to the many challenges that Canadians have been facing over these past number of years, whether it is tariffs or whether it is about a downturned economy, which is not just a Canadian phenomenon but a global phenomenon. As such, I am here to stand up and say that this budget really addresses the challenge of making sure that Canada, our economy, our people and our industries are put first. They need to be put first, and I would implore all of our colleagues here in the House to support this budget, because when we buy Canadian, when we focus on the Canadian economy by bringing in trade from province to province to territory to everybody, when we make sure our kids are well fed when they go to school and when we make sure that our international obligations are met and that we are investing in a Canadian policy, that is what Canada needs at this point.
Right now, as we deal with a lot of these challenges, which are not just Canadian challenges but global challenges, it is time for us to have a team Canada approach. Therefore, I would implore our colleagues from across the aisle to make sure that Canada is put first, putting aside partisan politics; to make sure that we have affordable housing for each and every person; to make sure that our nation-building projects are supported by this Parliament; to make sure that Canada is moving forward in a progressive way and in a strong way; and to make sure that for generations to come, we remain Canada strong.
Private Members' Business
[Private Members' Business]
[English]
Criminal Code
moved that Bill C-220, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (immigration status in sentencing), be read the second time and referred to a committee.
She said: Mr. Speaker, should judges be allowed to use a non-citizen's immigration status to issue a more lenient sentence to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault, just so that they can avoid deportation? The answer is no.
Tonight, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-220, the one law for all bill, which represents and reasserts the principles already laid out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act with regard to the deportation consequences associated with non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, such as sexual assaults, in Canada.
The vast majority of people in Canada who have immigrated here abide by our laws. Removal from Canada for non-citizens after being convicted of a serious crime is a no-brainer to protect everyone, the value of Canadian citizenship and, frankly, every person who resides in our country and plays by the rules.
After a decade of Liberal postnationalism and excessively high immigration levels, accepting this change would allow the government to demonstrate respect for Canadian citizenship by affirming that, at a minimum, the privilege of residing here for non-citizens depends on adherence to the rule of law. Everything that I have outlined and that I will outline tonight will show that beyond rote partisanship, there is no reason for the government not to support this bill. In fact, to save Canada's pluralism, the government must start admitting its errors with regard to immigration and working across party lines to accept common-sense solutions.
Recent public polling shows that support for immigration among both Canadians and newcomers is at an all-time low. This opinion should shock and spur every person in this place to action to find ways to solve this problem. That is what I am trying to do with this bill today. Thankfully, the reason Canadians do not support immigration the same way they used to is not because Canadians are pointing their fingers at immigrants. Rather, Canadians who are unhappy about immigration are pointing their fingers where the blame should be placed, at a federal government that has, over the past decade, brought too many people in too fast for housing, health care and jobs to keep up, while simultaneously legislating a doctrine of postnationalism that asserts that there is no Canadian national identity, which includes things like an equanimous judiciary, for non-citizens to integrate into.
Canada is at a tipping point. The government must quickly act to restore the immigration system that it broke. If the government will not act, which it has not, then Parliament must. In the spirit of non-partisanship, I have used my private member's bill slot to correct one of the many areas the government needs to act on to fix the immigration system. Later tonight, I and my colleagues will move many amendments to Bill C-12 in a further effort to do the same.
Going back to this bill, to be fair to everyone and to prevent the further erosion of Canada's tolerance for immigration, we must ensure that non-citizens who commit serious crimes like sexual assault face the consequences that are already set out in our laws. At a bare minimum, non-citizens who abuse the great privilege of being in our country by committing a serious crime like sexual assault should face the deportation consequences that are already outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Here is how we can do that. The bill before us tonight amends the Criminal Code by adding a new general sentencing principle under section 718. This is the section of the code where Parliament has exercised its right to provide guidance to the courts on how convicted offenders ought to be sentenced.
My bill proposes to add a simple, one-line new principle, section 718.202, which states that a court, when sentencing a convicted criminal “who is not a Canadian citizen shall not take into consideration any potential impact the sentence could have on the offender’s immigration status in Canada, or on that of a member of their family.”
This simple one-line provision ensures that provisions that are already outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are enforced when sentencing non-citizens convicted of serious crimes, like sexual assault.
That is the how, and here is the why. In recent years, there have been multiple instances of judges issuing sentences to non-citizens convicted of serious crimes that were designed to allow them to evade deportation. The net effect of this practice in considering a non-citizen's immigration status in order to give them more lenient sentences to avoid deportation is to create a two-tiered justice system between non-citizens and those with Canadian citizenship.
This is unfair and antithetical to the principles of fundamental justice, and it has eroded Canada's immigration consensus. Here are but a few examples of the rampant, excessive number of times non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault have been issued two-tiered, lenient sentences in very recent history, just so they would avoid the deportation consequences already set out in the law.
A non-citizen from India pleaded guilty to no fewer than four counts of voyeurism, which left his female victims with intense fear and anxiety and emotional distress. He was sentenced to five and a half months jail. Why? Despite the judge admitting that six to 12 months would have been a more appropriate sentence, this was to avoid deportation. The judge even said this.
In a 2024 Calgary case, another non-citizen from India was granted a conditional discharge for attempting to purchase sexual services from a 15-year-old girl. This was done to allow him to preserve his eligibility to become a Canadian citizen and avoid deportation. The judge cited in the sentence “the devastating collateral immigration consequences” of a harsher penalty. What about the victims'?
A non-citizen in Canada on a visitor permit was convicted of twice groping an 18-year-old woman's genitals under her skirt as she stood at a bar to buy a drink. This person, this non-citizen, received a discharge from the judge so he could have a deportation appeal.
In March 2024, a 24-year-old non-citizen from Surrey, B.C., received a conditional sentence of two years less a day for aggravated assault and possession of a weapon after stabbing a stranger. It sounds serious. What did the judge do? The judge rejected the Crown's four-year jail recommendation so the non-citizen would be able to avoid deportation.
In October 2025, just last month, Roosevelt Rush, a non-citizen from Jamaica, had his cocaine trafficking sentence halved from an expected term, while already serving six years for fentanyl and firearms offences, because the judge wanted to help him avoid deportation.
In 2024, in B.C., a non-citizen was convicted of fraud and received a six-month sentence, which a judge shortened from 10 months so he could avoid deportation.
In 2024, a non-citizen from Somalia was convicted of assault with threats against police and had their jail time cut short to evade deportation too. It was a refugee who committed these crimes while getting the benefit of Canadian sanctuary.
There is all this consideration for non-citizens convicted of serious crime to avoid deportation, but what about the victims? What about the value of Canadian citizenship or the responsibilities associated with being in our country? Being in Canada cannot just be about receiving the privileges and benefits of being in Canada, which are great. It also has to be about adhering to the responsibilities associated with that privilege, which includes adhering to the rule of law.
There are many other examples that illustrate the trend of immigration status being considered in sentencing, with criminal lawyers now routinely arguing for lighter sentences so their non-citizen clients can evade deportation or a denial of citizenship under IRPA's current provisions. Let me explain why this is happening.
Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in R v. Pham, the courts have been giving greater consideration to collateral immigration consequences when sentencing. To be clear, this court ruling explicitly ruled that this consideration does not constitute a charter right, a remedy or a charter breach. In fact, this ruling does not even mention the charter once. Furthermore, the court ruling also made clear that “The flexibility of our sentencing process should not be misused by imposing inappropriate and artificial sentences” and that to do so would be “circumventing Parliament's will”. That is clearly not what is happening.
Activist judges have twisted this ruling, as evidenced by the proliferation of examples I have given, beyond its scope in order to allow non-citizens who have been convicted of serious crimes to get more lenient sentences to avoid deportation. That is what is happening. Meanwhile, Canadians would not be given the same consideration, so we have a two-tiered justice system. The will of the court cannot be trusted if it is allowed to go unchecked, as it clearly has in all of these cases. My friends and colleagues, it is long past time for Parliament to exert its will and rein this poison in.
To be very clear to every colleague here, the Supreme Court has been clear that the people of Canada who are concerned by crimes committed by non-citizens have every right, through their elected representatives, to provide guidance to sentencing judges. That is exactly what this simple, common-sense, non-partisan bill would do. Just this morning, the Globe and Mail editorial board said that judges in our current system are “protecting non-citizens from the consequences of their criminal conduct”, lamenting that no one seems to consider “whether Canadians would want these offenders as citizens” in the first place. That was from the Globe and Mail.
While it is tempting to blame judges for this state of affairs, the fault lies with the federal government. In spite of the increased evidence of leniency in sentencing due to consideration of immigration status in recent years, it has declined to provide more clarity to judges through legislation. That is why I introduced a bill to amend the Criminal Code and rectify this issue. The rationale for this change is straightforward: Anyone seeking residence or citizenship in Canada, as I said, has responsibilities as well as rights.
The citizenship guide clearly states that citizens must obey Canada's laws and respect the rights and freedoms of others, and IRPA outlines the potential consequences for non-citizens who fail to do so.
A non-citizen in Canada should accept individual responsibility for defending the democratic institutions of Canada's constitutional monarchy, which is an ordered liberty rooted in the principles of peace, order and good government. In practice, this means they will defend shared Canadian rights, like freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of speech and freedom of the press; freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of association; and the equality of women and men. All Canadians and those seeking to become one are expected to abandon any violent, extreme or hateful prejudices and to contribute to Canada. They are expected to respect the rule of law and accept the consequences for not doing so.
Without legislative clarity on considering immigration status in sentencing, judges can apply aspects of the Pham ruling to undermine that principle for non-citizens, effectively end-running the deportation consequences already enacted by Parliament that exist in IRPA. To those who would say this bill offends the principle of judicial independence, I want to make it clear that it is entirely appropriate for Parliament to offer guidelines to the courts on sentencing. Section 718 already does this in countless ways, but I will highlight four examples.
First, the very beginning of section 718 in the Criminal Code states in part that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is “respect for the law”. I would argue that Canadians lose respect for the law when it is not applied equally, as it has not been done in the case of non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault.
Second, section 718.1 states:
A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
I would assert that at no point has Parliament intended to say that the “responsibility of the offender” is reduced because of their immigration status. To suggest otherwise is to remove agency from an individual just because they were born in a different country, and that is wrong.
Third, subparagraph 718.2(a)(iii.1) lists the following as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing:
evidence that the offence had a significant impact on the victim, considering their age and other personal circumstances, including their health and financial situation
Many of the cases I highlighted tonight involve sexual assaults, which obviously have a significant impact on the victim and disproportionately impact women. Our bill seeks to re-establish this general sentencing principle, which has too often been ignored.
Finally, paragraph 718.2(b) states:
a sentence should be similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances;
Obviously, giving the offender a lighter sentence just because of their immigration status offends this principle. It is well within Parliament's purview to reassert this general sentencing principle by further clarifying for judges that they should not take into account an offender's immigration status.
In closing, I would like to thank Sean Phelan, an unsung hero in Canadian history. A lot of people will not know this name, but he has single-handedly worked to reform Canada's justice system over the last 10 years. I thank him for his help on this bill tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I will have a bit of time to expand on some thoughts shortly, but I have a question for the member. The reference she always makes is about sexual offences. There are many different types of offences that a person can commit. I had an opportunity to tour, quite a while ago, prison sites where gambling addictions have led to a lot of types of crimes that ultimately make a person go to jail. Those are not sexual offences. I will just mention that to the member. I will expand on it shortly.
Does the member have any genuine confidence in judicial independence?
Mr. Speaker, I outlined in my speech why my bill upholds the principle of judicial independence. It also outlines how the Pham decision intended for the courts not to do exactly what they are doing right now, which is to subvert the will of Parliament. It has already been exerted in IRPA, which clearly states that a non-citizen convicted of a serious crime should be deported.
My colleague is introducing a principle for crimes like fraud and drug trafficking, or other offences. If somebody reaches the threshold of serious criminality in IRPA, they should be deported.
He laughed at this. For everybody watching at home, the Liberals laughed at the principle that underpins Canadian citizenship. To him, if someone commits a serious crime, they should stay here if they are a non-citizen. It is garbage.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that very knowledgeable speech. I had a tough time keeping up with her. It is a very complicated subject, but the premise of it is pretty basic given the crimes being committed.
We hear Liberals trying to equate sexual crimes with gambling crimes. There is a specific victim when we are talking about women and children being victims of sexual crimes. I do not want to leave the House with the idea that we should be diluting that just because of the status of an immigrant.
Can my colleague elaborate on the victims, especially as we are talking about murdered and missing women and violence against women, which the Liberals profess to stand up for?
Mr. Speaker, I will speak to two provisions briefly. The Criminal Code already states that sentencing needs to consider the impact on a victim. My colleague is absolutely right. However, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act also clearly states that a non-citizen who has been convicted of a serious crime should be deported. This is for any serious crime, because there is a victim in any crime but especially in serious ones.
What has happened through the Pham decision is that activist judges have perverted the original ruling, subverted the rule of Parliament, proliferated a set of leniencies for non-citizens convicted of serious crimes like sexual assault, and undermined public confidence in both the justice system and the immigration system. This is no way to uphold a pluralism. In fact, that is how a pluralism falls apart. Maybe that is what the Liberals want. After a decade of postnationalism, saying there is no national identity and eroding the rule of law, this where we are at. They need to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for bringing this bill forward. It is a great bill.
We have heard in the past stories of judges reducing a sentence so that particular people do not get deported. To me, this totally seems like a way of reducing the value of Canadian citizenship. I am wondering if she can comment on that.
Mr. Speaker, this is why the bill is so important. In order to preserve the value of Canadian citizenship, we need to understand there are responsibilities associated with being in Canada, not just privileges and benefits. In order to have those privileges and benefits, there are responsibilities. The bare minimum, as outlined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already, is not to get convicted of a serious crime. IRPA says that if a non-citizen is convicted of a serious crime, they should be deported.
I am sorry, but the will of Parliament needs to be supreme. I am actually not sorry, to be clear. Parliament needs to assert its will, rein in these activist judges and do what the federal government has not done. It has let them run amok for a decade and let them undermine the value of Canadian citizenship. They do not seek restitution for victims, and they make it unfair for every immigrant who comes here and plays by the rules, which is most immigrants.
This is a no-brainer bill. Every week, there is one of these stories, and every week, if the government—
Mr. Speaker, in many ways, I disagree with the motivation that is behind bringing this piece of legislation forward. The member herself even made reference to what is happening with public opinion in regard to immigration in general.
Is it any surprise that the Conservatives like to feed that perception? We see that with a number of actions and statements that they make. Even when I posed a question, the member responded by saying that I laughed and that the Liberal Party laughed. That is just not true. At the end of the day, I suggest they look at what happened. I did not laugh. I take the issue very seriously.
What I see across the way is a Conservative Party that does not take the issue of judicial independence very seriously, nor do its members have any concept of what good, sound public policy is in the best interest of Canadians and permanent residents. They would like to talk about the extremes and then exaggerate them to the degree that they feed anti-immigrant feelings in our country. I say shame on them. I think it does a very strong disservice to Canadians in general.
Let us think of a permanent resident. We could have a permanent resident living in Canada for 40 years. Do members know that permanent residents actually have family members here, some of whom do have citizenship?
Let me give an example of one file I had not that long ago. There was a father who was married, and he had a number of children. I believe he had three, or it could have been four; it might have even been five. It was at least three children. They were all citizens, but he was not. For a number of reasons, he was not. He was a permanent resident. There was an incident that involved drugs. At the end of the day, I believe that at the—
An hon. member: He tried to buy sex work.
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, it is really shameful to hear the allegations that are being thrown out across the way about buying sex and sexual violence, attributing that to the individual I am talking about. Shame on them.
An hon. member: Shame on you.
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, they need to understand the system before they start levelling the allegations that they have.
The Conservatives need to be a bit more understanding in terms of what happens in our communities. There are individuals who make bad decisions. Sometimes it does not necessarily justify a deportation. In some cases, it does not justify it. There could be extenuating circumstances that need to be taken into consideration, yet the Conservatives stand back and say nothing.
Where is that caring attitude for real people who are not committing the types of crimes that have been referenced by the mover of this legislation? At the end of the day, with the types of crime that are being suggested, people are going to be deported anyway. If someone is going out there and raping another individual, do we really believe that they are going to get special treatment from a judge when they go before a court? It is nowhere near the degree to which the Conservatives are trying to put it on the record.
I would suggest that it does two things. It clearly demonstrates that the Conservatives do not have respect for judicial independence. They do not respect judicial discretion. They talk about the rule of law, but let us look at the legislation they have brought before the House. The legislation consistently questions judicial independence and a judge's ability to have judicial discretion. They bring in legislation that is not charter-proof. They are prepared to walk on the rights of Canadians and, I would even suggest, permanent residents. Not everyone gets Canadian citizenship and has been here for 40 years. They do not for a number of different reasons.
It affects all communities. If you stand up and you are going to a multicultural event, tell them to their faces your feelings that even though they are here for 30 years, they should not be treated like a Canadian. Shame on the Conservative Party.
We live in a multicultural society, and there are good reasons for that. Many constituents whom Conservative members represent do not have a Canadian citizenship. There are well over a million plus; I would suggest it is probably over two million people who live in Canada who have been here for years and do not have Canadian citizenship.
At times some of them might fall on the other side of the law, and it does not necessarily mean that they are bad people and have to be deported. In certain situations, yes, but the difference is that Liberals believe in judicial independence. We understand the necessity of having discretion for our judges.
The Conservatives were talking about immigration numbers. The member for Calgary Nose Hill made reference to the “high immigration” numbers. Let me remind the Conservatives that I was in the opposition when Stephen Harper, back in 2014, said that they wanted to increase the number of temporary students and instructors to over 400,000 temporary visas by 2022. That was a Stephen Harper commitment. Following that, we had a pandemic.
There is a reason we have the situation we have today. Yes, there is responsibility on all of us, on all sides, to try to do what we can to stabilize our immigration, temporary visas and so forth, but continually and consistently, we hear from Conservatives who downplay the importance of immigration. They have a lack of respect for permanent residents, and we have seen a good example of that today. I would suggest that the Conservatives need to stop thinking about the far right movement within their caucus and start thinking in terms of what is in the best interests of Canadians.
This is legislation, as you can tell, that I will not be supporting. I do not see the merits of it. I think it is a betrayal of judicial independence and a betrayal of allowing judges to have discretion.
The Conservatives have not demonstrated at all that judges as a whole have not used proper discretion. Yes, there could be individual cases out there, but I have not heard a great amount of detail on those cases. Many of the types of cases we hear today are the same types of cases that would have been told when Stephen Harper was the prime minister and the current leader of the Conservative Party sat around the Conservative caucus, but at that time, they did not do a thing.
Today, the Conservatives are so far to the right that they want to appeal and say things that are ultimately, I would suggest, anti-immigrant. That is the reality. That is the type of thing we are seeing from the Conservative Party as it makes that shift even further and further to the right. It is no wonder Joe Clark said that he did not leave the Conservatives; the Conservative Party left him. It is the reason we have Kim Campbell feeling so uncomfortable with today's Conservative Party.
Is it any wonder that, at the end of the day, the Conservative Party needs to start seriously doing some internal review? We will wait and see what happens to the leader of the Conservative Party. I suspect he might get a few bumps, but at the end of the day I suspect he will survive, because the majority of the caucus is far to the right, based on the types of things we have been hearing in terms of not wanting the government to invest in social programs and that there is no role for the Government of Canada to build on social programs, whether it is health care, pharmacare, dental care, food for children, child care programs or supporting our seniors.
The far right and the Conservative Party do not like government. That is the type of thing we are seeing more and more of coming from the Conservative Party of today inside the House of Commons.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Hon. Kevin Lamoureux: Good luck. I hope you are in opposition for many more years to come.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that common sense will prevail and this legislation will not even make it to committee.
I will remind the member to address comments not directly across the floor but through the Chair.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this bill, in principle, deserves to be studied. In addition, the Supreme Court tells us that the immigration status of an accused should be taken into consideration. When reading the bill before us today, we get the impression that the mover understood that this was supposed to be the determining factor. That is obviously not what the Supreme Court said, and that is not what we think. It would be absurd if people with a precarious citizenship status could in fact commit crimes without punishment. I would be the first to be outraged and object to that.
However, things are not there yet. That is one factor among many. That is what the Supreme Court said, and that is what we are being asked to consider. However, we need to make a distinction between two scenarios.
Let us take the case of a drug trafficker who has already been convicted or charged in his own country, who finds himself in Canada and gets arrested with significant amounts of drugs, and says that he does not yet have Canadian citizenship status. Personally, I would not shed too many tears over the fact that he would never again have an opportunity to get his Canadian citizenship. I do not think that would be a big loss for Quebec society or for Canadian society.
Let us consider another case, a mother of three young children who is here waiting for her status, whose work permit has expired and has not been renewed for all sorts of administrative reasons. Her children have nothing left to eat, and she gets caught stealing a ham at the grocery store. That is an offence. It is theft, but will she be sent back to her country of origin because of it? The judge should not find her innocent of the crime since she did commit, but should it be a factor in sentencing? I think so.
The drug dealer who gets caught stealing a ham at the grocery store and the mother who gets caught doing the same thing may technically be committing the same offence, but I believe the court should take that into consideration. That is what we call judicial discretion or human justice. That is something Quebeckers believe in.
I would also be curious to hear someone talk about the frequency of crimes committed by newcomers. I am not sure there are that many. Newcomers are so focused on integrating, finding a job, learning the language, supporting their family and sorting out their health care and education needs that I doubt they would feel inclined to get mixed up in crime. I am not saying that it does not happen, but it is probably not a common occurrence that requires much of our attention.
On top of that, those among this group who commit crimes are not usually inveterate, dangerous or hardened offenders. I do not think there are many, if at all. In fact, the main cause of crime, whether for newcomers or long-time residents, is poor integration. These are people often called social misfits: people with no job and no interest in working, who for a variety of reasons live on the margins of society. They often commit offences like drug use, trafficking and so on. The problem, however, is that these people have fallen through the cracks of our society. They are are not well integrated or well adjusted. Social services try to help them and bring them back into the fold.
When we talk about newcomers, we are also talking about good integration. A poorly integrated newcomer will certainly be tempted by crime, convenience, theft, violence and drug trafficking. Poor integration will certainly encourage that type of situation. However, successful integration, with newcomers who have been taken care of, who have found a job, whose children are in school and who have learned the language, will ensure that those people do not commit crimes. If there are people, they are extremely rare. They will not come up.
What is the federal government doing to integrate newcomers? The bill before us proposes that newcomers who commit a crime be sent back to their home country. I agree, as I said earlier, at least in some cases. In other cases, I am less inclined to agree. That said, what is being done to integrate newcomers? What is being done to ensure that they do not fall into the trap of crime? Nothing is being done. There is no money and no transfers to the provinces. There are no resources. There is no collaboration between the federal government and the provinces.
The federal government sets its immigration thresholds and issues invitations. Members will recall when our former prime minister quite spectacularly invited all immigrants who were unhappy in the United States and who were not being treated properly to come here. He said that Canada would welcome them with open arms. He organized the party and sent out the invitations, but he forgot he had to buy beer and sandwiches for everyone. Many people came to Canada, and the vast majority of them entered Quebec.
Why did they come to Quebec instead of going elsewhere? That question may need to be explored at some point. I do not have that information or that kind of expertise. Nevertheless, they came to Quebec, and the province had no choice since immigration is a provincial responsibility. They had to be integrated, schools had to be paid and clothes had to be purchased. People need to be dressed for winter. It is cold during the winter, and people need boots and coats. They also need health care. Steps had to be taken to determine whether parents who wanted to work could get work permits. They had to be housed, despite the housing crisis. There has been much talk about the fact that the housing crisis was more pronounced because of the influx of migrants, yet the federal government never did anything to integrate them. The federal government left it up to the provinces to figure it out. They had to make the arrangements. Then the government wonders why these people are not integrated and why some of them commit crimes.
Before coming to the House, I did a quick Internet search on newcomers. I did not have to look very far. On August 30, 2025, just a few months ago, a Canadian-American family from Bromont was facing deportation after 15 years in Canada. Four of the six children are Canadian; they all speak French; they love Quebec; they are well integrated, and they want to stay. However, for reasons unknown, the mother received a deportation notice and had a choice between going on her own and leaving the children here, or taking them with her and returning to where she came from. That is not a very elegant integration process. The woman had not committed any crimes, and she was working.
I have another example, that of a family originally from Mexico. This is more recent news, from November 5. It was my colleague and friend, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, who stepped in. According to the newspapers, a Mexican family with two autistic children narrowly avoided being deported from Canada. That family found out that they were getting a reprieve just one hour before boarding the plane. The family has three young children and they have been in Quebec for seven years. Two of those children have severe autism and were born in Canada. I will not tell the rest of the story because I am running out of time.
Here is another example, from November 3. It concerns a 26-year-old man whose family is here in Quebec. His 24-year-old wife was presented with a fait accompli. She received a deportation notice. They have a child. She was forced to return to Mexico. He returned to Mexico with his wife and child because he did not want to leave her all alone. That is not very nice. That is what the federal government is doing in terms of integration.
There are not many options left for Quebec. We can continue to let the federal government bring people into our province without helping us integrate them, which creates untenable situations. We can also make a decision. We may have to make a decision and take control of all the levers. If Quebec wants to succeed, it will have to be sovereign and take control of all the levers. We will have to collect our taxes and use them to integrate these people. We will have to decide for ourselves who we welcome, when, where, and how we integrate them. In the meantime, we are subject to ill-conceived federal decisions that create problems for us. Unfortunately, I suspect we have not seen the end of it.
Quebec has to become independent in order to have full power, determine immigration thresholds, collect its own taxes, and use them appropriately. This is the only solution I see for us to get out of this situation, unless the federal government wakes up and decides to start working with the provinces and with Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Speaker, 10 years of radical open borders policies and mass migration have undermined confidence in what was the best system of immigration anywhere in the world. The Liberals imposed this radical approach without any care, consideration or thought for the strains it would place on our housing, health care and job market. The result is chaos in our streets.
Nowhere is this problem more acute than in the area of lawlessness and criminality that the Liberals have invited through the system. They have allowed people to come to this country and get visitor visas and other permits to enter Canada without actually performing any criminal background checks. To this day, there are 400 criminals who have since been ordered deported but have not left and have vanished completely into Canadian society.
Furthermore, our legal system now discriminates against Canadians and in favour of non-Canadian, non-citizen criminals who are here, in fact, lowering the sentences they receive for convictions in order to allow them to stay. This is an unbelievable perversion of justice that does exactly the opposite of what we should seek. It should be a stated policy of our system to get criminals out of Canada. If someone is not a citizen, not a Canadian and commits a crime, then they should be shown the door because becoming a citizen of this country requires good, law-abiding behaviour that will protect the well-being and the interests of this country.
I will read through some examples of the kind of backward thinking that has pervaded our system.
In the Pham decision, a key matter was that the sentence had to be reduced in order to allow the defendant to stay in the country.
In 2023, in another case, a 30-year-old man, Akashkumar Khant, tried to have sex with a 15-year-old at a Mississauga hotel for $140. He received only a conditional sentence because a stronger penalty would have hindered his and his wife's ability to obtain Canadian citizenship. On June 25, Khant was sentenced to a conditional discharge for committing an indecent act. For three months, he was placed under house arrest, during which time he was able to go shopping for three hours every Sunday, attend religious services and medical appointments, and travel to and from work, with 12 months of probation afterward. In other words, his sentence was specifically reduced so that he could stay in Canada.
In 2024, a 25-year-old non-citizen, originally in Canada on a study permit and then a visitor permit, sexually assaulted an 18-year-old at a club in Calgary. Despite being found guilty, the court, led by Justice Anne Brown, took into account that he would be deported without appeal if the charge was one of sexual assault. Therefore, the court decided to discharge him and subject him to 15 months of probation. If he had been a Canadian, he would have been convicted of sexual assault and actually gone to jail, but as a privilege for being here as a non-citizen non-Canadian, he had his sentence reduced to no jail time and therefore was allowed to stay in this country.
On July 22, 2025, a Canadian judge hit the brakes on a guilty plea from a non-citizen linked to a homicide and facing serious criminal charges, citing discomfort with the fact that the accused would likely be deported if found guilty.
Victor Bueron, a 22-year-old Filipino national, was set to plead guilty on multiple charges stemming from a high-risk takedown by Barrie Police earlier this year. He was arrested on January 17, along with several co-accused, after officers stopped a vehicle in a north end plaza and allegedly found drugs and firearms. His sentence was reduced to preserve citizenship possibility.
In October 2025, Roosevelt Rush, a Jamaican national convicted of smuggling 55 grams of cocaine while already on bail, had his sentence slashed in half to just 12 months from what would have been a proportionate due sentence. In part, this was because of his immigration status.
Again, on October 2, a judge reduced the sentence of Aswin Sajeevan, who was here on a study visa, to just five and a half months in jail because a sentence of six months would have made him inadmissible to Canada on grounds of serious criminality. According to an article, the judge specifically weighed the “immigration consequences” for the former international student, who spied on his female housemates through a peephole in the bathroom wall; he made videos recording the four of them in various stages of undress over a period of six months.
We see example after example in which judges are specifically lowering the sentences of non-Canadian citizens in order to allow them to stay in Canada. We welcome law-abiding, hard-working Canadian immigrants, people who want to come and productively build our country while following our laws. We do not welcome people who want to come here and commit crimes. That is why I am very pleased that the member for Calgary Nose Hill has introduced the bill which I rise to speak to today, Bill C-220, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which would prohibit judges from lowering sentences or penalties on the basis of immigration status. We have one law. It should apply to every person equally. A person who does the crime should do the time, and if that makes them ineligible to stay in Canada, then they must leave, full stop. That is just the reality.
Canadians have the right to live in peace and tranquility. They have the right to know that when they walk out the front door, they will not be harmed. They should also have the right to valued citizenship. We do not give away citizenship to anyone who comes here and breaks our laws. Arriving here as an immigrant means that there is a certain degree of responsibility, just as there is for those who are born here. Those responsibilities include following the laws, respecting others and protecting the safety of fellow Canadians and newcomers to this country.
We believe in a system of controlled, merit-based immigration, in which we welcome people who want to join the Canadian family, work hard, succeed and build a better life. The vast majority of immigrants seek exactly that. They come, often fleeing violence and danger, but when they arrive here, they do not expect to be victimized by criminals who then use loopholes in order to stay in Canada and avoid penalty under the law.
As Conservatives, we believe that Canada can once again be a safe place where all people feel that they live in peace and harmony, where their property and their persons are protected, where everyone is equal under the law, where people are held accountable for their behaviour and where, most of all, Canadian law becomes paramount and anyone who comes here understands that following the law is the basic responsibility that is necessary to graduate from visitor to temporary resident, permanent resident and, eventually, citizen. Citizenship in Canada must have restored value, and that value starts with respecting the safety and the security of every Canadian and the rule of law in our land.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today to private member's bill, Bill C‑220, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to immigration status in sentencing, introduced by the member for Calgary Nose Hill.
This bill raises fundamental questions about our justice system, such as the individualization of sentences, proportionality, parity and, above all, the key role the judiciary plays in determining fair sentences that are tailored to the circumstances of each case. It also touches on the delicate but very real intersection between our criminal justice system and our immigration system.
However, far from improving this system, Bill C‑220 weakens it. It seeks to take away some of the critically important discretion judges have and to overturn, without justification or evidence, the Supreme Court of Canada's unanimous jurisprudence. This should be of concern to us all.
According to the Conservative member who introduced this bill, the courts give preferential treatment or overly lenient sentences to non-citizens when they consider the consequences of immigration, such as the loss of the right to appeal or the possibility of removal from Canada.
The facts do not support this claim. No study, no analysis and no attorney general, either federal or provincial, has indicated that the courts are misusing the existing jurisprudence. When very minor sentence reductions occur, such as a one-day reduction, they are rare, transparent and entirely subject to appeal. The bill therefore proposes a heavy-handed and rigid solution to a problem that simply does not exist.
The bill creates a new section 718.202 in the Criminal Code that would explicitly prohibit judges from considering any immigration-related consequences when sentencing someone who is not a Canadian citizen. In other words, even if a sentence of six months, rather than five months and 29 days, automatically triggers the loss of the right to appeal a deportation order, the court would be legally obligated to ignore the very real impact and serious consequences this would have.
Citizens serve their sentence and return to their community. Permanent residents and people who came to Canada when they were children could be sent back to a country they do not know. Judges would be forced to pretend as though this reality does not exist. That is not justice, it is not proportionate and it is certainly not what our Constitution requires.
In 2013, under a Conservative government, the Supreme Court of Canada clearly stated that some of the very real consequences of sentencing include consequences related to immigration status and, as such, they can be considered by the courts. The court made two key points on the matter. Yes, a judge can take into account immigration-related consequences to ensure that the sentence, as a whole, remains proportional to the crime committed. The court also said that, no, those consequences cannot outweigh the seriousness of the offence or the moral responsibility of the accused, no matter what Conservatives say. The framework we have is balanced, reasonable and constitutional, and it has been working for over a decade. However, today, the Conservatives are proposing to abolish that jurisprudence. They were in power when that decision was made. They had two years to do something about it, if they thought it was really a problem, but they did not do so.
The member for Calgary Nose Hill and the Leader of the Opposition, who was the member for Carleton at the time, were government members then. However, they did nothing at the time. That tells us that what they are trying to do today is not to correct an injustice, but to recycle a punitive policy that, at the time, had already been subject to constitutional challenges on a number of occasions.
Anyone familiar with criminal law knows that. Sentencing is based on a fundamental principle: individualization. Two people who commit the same crime will not necessarily have the same history, vulnerabilities or family responsibilities, nor face the same consequences. The courts already take a wide range of collateral consequences into account for all Canadians, not just for immigrants. Collateral consequences can include the loss of a job, the risk of homelessness, a lengthy family separation, mental health impacts and, in some cases, the inability to pursue an education. Why, then, single out only one category of consequences—immigration consequences—and prohibit judges from considering them?
This inconsistency clearly shows that Bill C‑220 is not founded on legal logic, but on political logic. In reality, the effects of a criminal sentence vary widely depending on the immigration status of the person convicted.
The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act states that a sentence of six months or more means an automatic loss of the right to appeal a deportation order, and a sentence of more than six months or an offence punishable by 10 years means that it is possible to be deemed inadmissible on the grounds of a serious crime.
Those consequences are not part of the Criminal Code. They are the result of a parallel administrative regime created by Parliament. Prohibiting judges from considering those consequences means accepting or even institutionalizing the fact that two people convicted of the same offence will experience fundamentally different consequences. Yes, a two-tier justice system, that is what our Conservative colleague wants to set up with Bill C‑220, and it is the opposition's bill that would create that injustice, not the courts.
Our government opposes Bill C‑220, particularly because it is ill-conceived, because it is not based on evidence, because it violates the principle of proportionality, parity and fundamental justice, and because it would undermine judicial independence, a pillar of the rule of law.
When someone proposes measures to amend the Criminal Code, when they say they want to improve public safety, they need to approach it seriously in the House. They need to ensure that the proposed measures truly respect our Constitution. That is not the case here. Bill C-220 and other private members' bills introduced by colleagues from the official opposition would be struck down by the courts. This is simply a waste of time, a waste of resources and results in disappointment for Canadians.
On our side of the House, we understand that, and we make sure that we propose legislation that is truly tailored to the situations we are dealing with. We also ensure the proposed legislation is constitutional. For example, I am thinking of Bill C-14, which proposes a major overhaul of the Canadian bail and sentencing system. This bill proposes more than 80 amendments to the Criminal Code that are, I repeat, in line with our Constitution. We want to make it more difficult for criminals, particularly violent repeat offenders, to obtain bail and ensure that sentences are truly proportional to the crimes committed. We are very serious about safety in our communities. I invite my colleagues to support us in our legislative work on Bill C-14.
Other initiatives that come to mind are Bill C‑12, which aims to strengthen border security; Bill C‑9, which aims to combat hate crimes in our communities; and our commitment to better protect victims of intimate partner violence. There is also our strategy to combat fraud and financial crimes that typically impact vulnerable people such as seniors. Our government is serious. We are going to implement the first anti-fraud strategy, and we have allocated resources in the 2025 budget to support these initiatives.
I am also thinking of all the investments being made in the 2025 budget. This demonstrates how serious our new government is about public safety.
I am thinking of our border plan, the largest investment ever made Canada to ensure that our borders are secure. This is an important issue in my riding given that it has more than five border crossings. I am also thinking about our investments to increase the number of RCMP officers and CBSA agents. When we invest in public safety, we also understand that we must prevent crime upstream. That is why we are investing in housing, mental health and youth supports—to address the issue of petty crimes and property crimes before they even happen.
With Bill C‑14, we are strengthening actions against those who pose the greatest risks. In addition, with our budget, we are also investing in preventing crime from happening in the first place, and that is very important.
Bill C‑220 will not make Canadians safer. It will not build trust in the justice system. It will only lead to injustices, inconsistencies and predictable constitutional challenges. Our role is to build an effective, fair and evidence-based justice system, not to build one based on political slogans. However, the bill from the member for Calgary Nose Hill puts rhetoric ahead of sound, evidence-based policy. Justice must not be blind to the consequences of its own decisions. Bill C‑220 calls for exactly that, and for these reasons, I will be voting against the bill, and I am asking all my colleagues from all parties to vote against it.
[English]
Government Orders
[Government Orders]
[English]
Softwood Lumber Industry
(House in committee of the whole on Government Business No. 2, Alexandra Mendès in the chair)
Before we begin this evening's debate, I would like to remind hon. members how the proceedings will unfold.
[Translation]
Each member speaking will be allotted 10 minutes for debate, followed by 10 minutes for questions and comments.
[English]
Pursuant to order made on Friday, November 21, members may divide their time with another member.
The time provided for the debate may be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each. The Chair will receive no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent.
[Translation]
We will now begin tonight's take-note debate.
[English]
Hon. David McGuinty (for the Minister of Transport)
moved: That this committee take note of the softwood lumber industry.
Madam Chair, it is a pleasure to be able to rise to talk about such an important issue. It is really quite encouraging that we seem to have unanimous support with respect to having the debate this evening. I like to think that, no matter what side of the House a member sits on, we all recognize how valuable Canada's softwood industry is to the entire nation. I genuinely believe that we have a government, whether it be the Prime Minister, the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade, the minister responsible for natural resources or, I would suggest, virtually the entire caucus, that is very much concerned about the impact the trade war is having on Canada.
I will be sharing my time, by the way.
The impact is quite significant. I do not think we could overestimate the individuals who work directly in the industry, the entrepreneurs, the businesses and the communities, or the impact of this unfair trade war that is taking place, where once again the lumber industry is being targeted.
Unfortunately, this is not a new issue. The softwood lumber issue has been an issue for many years. It even predates my being elected here in the House of Commons 15 years ago. In fact, if we were to do a bit of history on it, we would probably find that it goes back into the eighties when there was a controversy because the United States did not feel as secure as it should have and was not as sympathetic to the consumers of the United States as it should have been. Unfortunately, whether it was the lumber barons or whoever else, the different vested stakeholders felt it necessary to put pressure on the U.S.A. authorities, which ultimately led to the tariffs and duties we have seen applied to this very important industry.
When we think about the jobs, we are probably talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of approximately 200,000. It is a significant number of jobs. When we think about the value of the industry to our nation, to the GDP, we are talking billions of dollars every year. That is why it is not only the people working directly but everyone working in the industry indirectly who are affected by these unfair tariffs that have been put on Canadian softwood lumber. We do not have to be from the province of British Columbia or Quebec or other jurisdictions that export softwood lumber.
This is why I am pleased we are actually going to have this debate today. I will be very interested in hearing what kinds of solutions or thoughts members have to address the issue.
The Prime Minister has been very aggressive on the whole trade file. Even though that will have an impact, we have other ministers who are seriously looking, and I am looking at the Minister of Finance in particular, at providing supports in the interim, because I believe, much like with the trade agreement, that we need to ensure that we continue to move forward with discussions that will ultimately see the best deal for the industry. That is something all of us, at least in the Liberal caucus and I would like to think all members, would like to see: the best deal for Canadians and, in particular, the industry.
Madam Chair, I have been a member of the House for 10 years, and I think this might be the first time I have heard our hon. colleague actually mention the word “softwood”, although he gets up time and time again every day.
It is interesting that the Liberals put up a member of Parliament from downtown Winnipeg, when really it is the smaller communities that are impacted, but he did have some facts straight; there are over 200,000 workers in the forestry industry, which is more than in auto, steel and aluminum combined. In our province of British Columbia, over 30 mills have closed, including 14 in my riding.
In 2015 the Liberals promised a softwood deal within 100 days of taking office. It has been more than 2,900 days. The Prime Minister says that it is not a burning issue and that it does not matter. My question for my hon. colleague is this: Will he fly to my riding and tell little Lucas from 100 Mile Elementary school that his parents, who lost their jobs, do not matter?
Madam Chair, the member opposite does not have a monopoly on caring for an industry. One does not have to live in B.C., or any other specific province, to care about what is happening to the workers of Canada.
Shame on the member for trying to impute motive, trying to give the impression that the Prime Minister or other members do not care. This is a government that cares about what is happening, and we show that by the investments and support we are putting in.
We cannot just wave a wand and make the problem disappear. It takes time, and we are prepared to take the time and to support the industry and the workers so we can get the best deal we can. We cannot just click our heels and have the problems disappear. The Leader of the Conservative Party might believe that to be the case, but that is not reality.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, this evening, we will have plenty of opportunity to demonstrate the government's incompetence. I just want to start with a little update, for the benefit of the parliamentary secretary.
Usually, when we talk about a subject, we should try to understand it first. The issues for the forestry industry are the countervailing and anti-dumping duties. Tariffs are also an issue, and these are at 10%. The biggest issue that is making life difficult for people in the forestry industry is these countervailing and anti-dumping duties.
If the parliamentary secretary does not understand that, I am beginning to understand why the government is incapable of taking action on this situation: anti-dumping and countervailing duties are repaid once the dispute is settled.
I was saying that to help my colleague. I hope he will understand the situation better. I hope that tonight we will hear speeches from the Liberals that offer solutions, not empty talking points.
[English]
Madam Chair, I have had the good fortune of being able to talk about this issue on numerous occasions, whether it was about the softwood industry or the hardwood industry, just generally speaking about the types of things we can do to make a difference and support the industry while we are going through these difficult times. For example, there is the buy Canada plan and the expansion of building homes in Canada. These things all help.
There are also the financial support programs that the government is providing, such as direct support for employees, and we are looking at loan support for the industry. The government recognizes there is a need to support the industry and the workers during a difficult time, and that means, at the end of the day, that we do have to continue to work.
To try to imply that the government does not care is very misleading. To try to imply that the government is not aware of the details of the issue is very misleading. We do care, and we will continue to work on the issue.
Madam Chair, because of the Liberals' 10 years of failure to get a softwood lumber deal, the U.S. has collected over $10 billion in anti-dumping duties. The Canadian government abandoned the court cases to get that money back. Why did it?
Madam Chair, I am sure the member is aware that the federal government has been working with premiers, in particular in the province of B.C. There is a committee. We are looking at ways we can continue to support the industry.
Again I would reinforce that, at the end of the day, we need to be looking at ways we can support the industry, while at the same time trying to get rid of the tariffs and the duties that are being unfairly imposed on the Canadian lumber industry.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, U.S. tariffs are having a major economic impact on the Canadian softwood lumber industry, a pillar of our Canadian economy and a key economic driver in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche. As a member of Parliament, this issue is top of mind for me in Ottawa, and I am actively engaged in discussions with my colleagues to advance our interests on this matter.
I understand very well the importance of the forestry sector for our communities. My father works in the woods as a forester. My neighbours, friends and, in particular, people from across my riding work in this sector, in our sawmills, directly in the forest, in transportation, in machinery, in pulp and paper production, and in various related economic activities.
I live in the forest in Kedgwick River, and I see trucks going by my house every day to supply our sawmills. I grew up witnessing every day just how much the forestry industry contributes to the economic vitality of my region. The jobs it creates are the main source of income for many families in my riding. Our businesses are firmly rooted in our communities, contributing financially to many local initiatives. The economic benefits of the forestry industry have a positive impact on all other industries in my riding. That is why this issue is so important to me as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
I want to emphasize that the tariffs imposed by the U.S. administration are unjustified and harmful to workers, businesses and families on both sides of the border. Our government is working with all levels of government to resolve the current softwood lumber dispute. Of course, we want to negotiate a new economic relationship with the United States, including a softwood lumber agreement, but it must be on favourable terms.
In these times of economic turmoil, our government has implemented a series of measures to help businesses and workers affected by U.S. tariffs. I am pleased to note that budget 2025 did not overlook the softwood lumber sector. We have put in place a $700-million program administered by the Business Development Bank of Canada that provides guarantees to financial institutions to facilitate access to financing and letters of credit. The goal is to give businesses quick access to the liquidity they need to maintain their operations. This support will be targeted at the businesses most affected by these unjustified tariffs because they export to the United States.
There will also be an extra half-billion-dollar investment in various forestry-related programs to help the sector diversify, grow its activities and support value-added production. Other measures announced in the budget will also support both businesses and workers affected by this tariff dispute through the strategic response fund. In fact, the Forest Products Association of Canada, which represents several members of my riding, has described these budgetary measures as welcome assistance.
We have launched our buy Canadian policy. In the past, we literally built Canada from our forests and the work of our forestry workers. Today, we want to continue building our country with our wood. At the heart of our strategy is the desire to buy Canadian and become our own best customer by using more Canadian lumber in our projects. For example, we want to double the pace of residential construction, support numerous infrastructure projects, and back major projects of national interest. We will do so with Canadian resources, giving preference to domestic lumber. In this way, our government is strengthening domestic demand in order to reduce exposure to volatile U.S. tariffs.
As a member of Parliament, I am in constant communication with the workers and business owners in my region so that I can clearly understand their reality. This helps me stand and fight for specific local issues in Ottawa. One of many examples is the particular situation of the eastern white cedar. I also promote the importance of key players in the sector, including forestry operators. They often own small or or medium-sized businesses and provide good jobs back home. The work that forestry operators do is essential. They are the ones who harvest the wood in the forest. These businesses play a critical role and the current circumstances are a challenge for them too. That is why I am making sure that their concerns are heard during discussions of the softwood lumber file. The same goes for our companies specializing in forestry machinery or industrial equipment.
In conclusion, jobs in the softwood lumber sector have deep roots in our communities and, I repeat, our government is determined to protect the sector and Canadian workers, including workers in Madawaska—Restigouche.
[English]
Madam Chair, forgive me. I appreciate that our hon. colleague has some knowledge and that his communities have been impacted by the Liberal government, by his Liberal team's failure over the last 10 years. I appreciate that he understands the importance of forestry in his riding and in his community, but I cannot see how he shows his face on the doorsteps of forestry companies, when it has taken the government 10 years to get to this point. The Liberals like to blame the new U.S. administration for all the worries we have with the issue, but the reality is that their failures of the last 10 years are to blame.
I want to ask our hon. colleague how he shows his face on the doorsteps of forestry companies.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, I am in regular contact with business owners and forestry workers. People back home understand that the U.S. tariffs are completely unjustified and harmful. It was not our government that asked for them; it was the American administration that imposed them. However, our government is there to help the businesses and workers affected.
Just look at the budget, which includes measures of more than $1.2 billion to provide access to liquidity. It is a budget that my opposition colleagues have opposed. If people seriously want to help the softwood lumber industry get through tough economic times, then they should vote for the budget that includes measures to help the industry.
As a Liberal member, I am proud to go home to my riding to talk about the work that our government is doing here in Ottawa to help businesses across the country, including those in Madawaska—Restigouche.
Madam Chair, I was actually a victim of one of those crises. I lost my job in 2005. I worked for a company with 222 employees. The same thing is happening now.
Groups came forward with solutions a few weeks ago. If this trend continues, if the government does not wake up, there will be no more companies left to Build Canada Homes.
Has the government considered the fact that, eventually, if there are no more businesses, even a magic wand will not enable us to meet the objectives?
Can we actually give forestry companies all the help they deserve?
Madam Chair, my colleague is absolutely right. Our country was built thanks to our forests and our forestry workers. Through Build Canada Homes, the softwood lumber sector will be essential for building hundreds of thousands more homes.
She referred to the closure of sawmills. It is never an easy situation for our families, our workers and our industries. That is why we must be there to support them. It starts with targeted measures in the budget to the tune of $1.2 billion. It also includes the strategic response fund that we set up to help the businesses and workers most affected by the current tariffs. It also involves other measures that we can put in place to support the softwood lumber sector.
As the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, I am in constant contact with workers and businesses in my riding to listen to them, to hear their proposals, and to share their comments with my colleagues so that our government can then implement public policies that are truly tailored to the needs of the sector.
[English]
Madam Chair, I guess I am an optimist. When I was thinking about the debate this evening, I was anticipating we would have a good, healthy debate. The member has put forward a lot of things the government is actually doing, and I have made reference to a couple of things the Government of Canada is doing to support the industry and the workers.
I am wondering if the member could provide his thoughts in regard to why it is important that all members have the opportunity to say what they would do to help resolve the issue, how we can contribute. We on the government benches look at it in terms of supporting the workers, supporting the industry, by providing financial support through the build Canada program. Could the member add to that?
[Translation]
Madam Chair, it really is important for me to take part in this debate this evening because the forestry industry is the main economic driver in my riding. We have put a number of measures in place to help this industry weather the economic turbulence. We may need other measures as well.
I am thinking in particular of the intermediaries, those who are affected by the tariffs but do not export their products directly to the United States, which is what forestry operators have to do.
[English]
Madam Chair, the Prime Minister famously promised during the election that he would negotiate a win with the U.S. President and get a deal by July 21. Here we are in December, months after his self-imposed deadline, and there is still no win, still no deal, still no elbows and still no jobs. Since he became Prime Minister and promised an end to U.S. tariffs, they have actually doubled on autos, aluminum and steel, and they have tripled on Canadian lumber, a subject about which the member for Cariboo—Prince George will be speaking as I split my time with him. That brings the tariff to 45% on Canadian lumber, the highest in Canadian history.
Before we go to the normal Liberal transition that they make around this time, from making promises to making excuses, when they suggest that there is nothing they could possibly do about American tariffs on Canadian lumber, let us be clear: Prime Minister Stephen Harper negotiated an end to, and refund of, American softwood lumber tariffs within 79 days of becoming prime minister. The Liberal government has been in power for 10 years, and it has not been able to get rid of the tariffs that were imposed on Canada mere months after then prime minister Trudeau took office.
Furthermore, since the current Prime Minister came into office, not only has he failed to achieve the same as Stephen Harper did, with more than double the time as Prime Minister that Stephen Harper took to get a deal, but the tariffs have tripled, reaching levels not even imaginable before he took office. One might have asked what it is that he could have done differently. This Prime Minister not only failed to make softwood lumber a negotiating priority in his dealings with President Trump, but he unilaterally backed down. He reversed Canada's dispute of multiple legal disputes against the illegal and indefensible tariffs.
I will read a headline right out of Bloomberg: “Canada ends fight against some U.S. softwood lumber duties”. The article states, Ottawa “has revoked two separate claims disputing U.S. anti-dumping duties”.
It was claimed that this was a “strategic choice”, that the Prime Minister was making some kind of brilliant chess move, backing away and giving a major concession to the U.S. administration without getting anything in return.
Let us be clear: There is not a single American tariff that the Prime Minister got reduced in exchange for this concession. It was a unilateral climbdown, and since that time, the U.S. President has not only increased tariffs but also broadened them to new products not previously covered, such as cabinetry and trucks. The Prime Minister, who claimed that these tariffs were an existential threat to Canada requiring his immediate election back in the spring, now says, “Who cares?” when he is asked about how the talks are going with the U.S. We have gone from “elbows up” to “Who cares?” That is the distinction between the pre-election Prime Minister and the post-election Prime Minister.
I will tell members who cares: We care. We care about the workers at the 30 sawmills in British Columbia that have closed under the Liberal government's diplomatic failures. We care about the 150 union workers laid off at the Ear Falls sawmill.
[Translation]
We are concerned about the workers at Chantiers Chibougamau.
[English]
We care about the 150 workers who lost their jobs at 100 Mile House in B.C. amid market challenges. We care about the 350 workers at Sinclar Group Forest Products now facing a 40% production cut.
This is a massive industry of over $20 billion that has more people working in it than steel, aluminum and autos combined. We need these jobs. Conservatives would put negotiating the end to the softwood lumber tariffs at the front of our objectives. We would take all taxes off homebuilding so that we can use more Canadian lumber to build more affordable homes. Housing, after all, is a tariff-proof industry, because after we build those homes in Canada, they do not face U.S. tariffs. We would speed up permitting, free up land and build more homes, all of which would revitalize and rebuild our logging and mill towns so that they can have great jobs, providing the best lumber anywhere in the world.
Madam Chair, I have a comment and a question for the Leader of the Opposition.
My comment is that it sounds to me as though there is selective amnesia from the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservatives, because this has been going on for 40 years. He just reminded us of one time under Prime Minister Harper, but it has really happened five times over 40 years, and this is the fifth time. Therefore, let us talk about the whole situation.
My question for the Leader of the Opposition is this: He is very good at criticizing the Prime Minister on every single step, but I have never heard what his plan would be to negotiate with the President of the United States. I would love to hear that from him.
Madam Chair, the member claims that this is a 40-year-long dispute, but he omits the fact that in the 10 years Conservatives were in power, we successfully negotiated an end to the softwood lumber tariffs. Furthermore, that was one time in 10 years, during which, by the way, the Americans actually paid back $4 billion of previously collected tariffs. By contrast, those tariffs came back in when the Liberal government took office. The Liberals have had three presidents and 10 years to reverse the defeat that happened under their watch. Not only have they not done it, but the tariffs went from their original 7% to 15%, and then when the Prime Minister took office, they went up to 45%. That shows how much worse things are today than when the Liberal government took office, particularly when the current Prime Minister took office while making grand promises that he was a three-dimensional chess player who could outwit the world and get us a deal.
I will tell the member what I would have done differently. I never would have dropped the legal challenges. I would have kept fighting to get our money back. I would have fought for every mill and logging town in this country. That is what I would have done differently.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, people in the forestry industry are not interested in listening to nasty remarks and verbal game playing tonight. People in the forestry sector are not interested in hearing about who cares about the situation and who does not. They want to hear that people are ready to commit and that they are considering the solutions that have been put in place.
A proposal was made and it has been on the table for three or four weeks. However, I do not hear anyone in the opposition taking ownership of it or talking about it.
People in the industry say that the countervailing and anti-dumping duties, or at least a portion of them, need to be bought back. It will not cost the government anything. Predatory hedge funds are doing it.
I want the Leader of the Opposition to tell me that he is prepared to support this measure and that he is prepared to support the forestry sector by giving it some breathing room.
Madam Chair, I did put forward solutions. I said that we should make softwood lumber a priority in our negotiations with the Americans to reopen this historic market, a market that continues to increase its softwood lumber imports from Europe.
Then, we should restart our legal challenge to the U.S. tariffs, which are illegal.
Finally, we need to massively ramp up home construction by removing the taxes and red tape that are preventing Canadians from building homes. We are building fewer homes now than we did in 1972 because of red tape, bureaucracy and taxes. These homes could be built with Canadian softwood lumber.
[English]
Madam Chair, I met with lumber workers this morning, representing mill town workers from Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, from Golden, Sicamous and Salmon Arm all the way to Kamloops. They are concerned about the jobs already lost and the jobs that are on the line. They talk about a Prime Minister who says, “Who cares?”
I would like to hear from the leader of the official opposition as to why we should care. It is not just the jobs in the mills themselves but all the others who are reliant on them as well.
Madam Chair, absolutely; in fact, I would go even further. I thank the member for fighting for forestry communities right across British Columbia. I would go even further than he does. It is not just livelihoods. There are literally mill towns and logging towns that will not exist if this continued tariff applies. They are unable to sell their product into the United States competitively with a 45% tariff, an unprecedented tariff level.
We need to save these mill towns and these jobs by opening up the market.
Madam Chair, I am going to pick up where our hon. leader just left off. It always comes down to home for me. It is friends and families and it is the communities in Cariboo—Prince George or across our country that are affected by the tens of thousands of jobs that have been lost.
I have some information for my colleagues across the way. I worked in logging. I ran skidder, and I ran chainsaw for a time. I bucked for a time. I am proud to, maybe, be one of the only ones in the House who knows what it is like to have white bread sandwiches with chain oil on my hand and go out to the blocks early in the morning. I remember a time when our communities were dotted with signs that said that the families there were proudly supported by forestry.
What we are seeing now in the 10 years, and where our frustration lies, is that we have somebody who has been here for a minute trying to say that we have selective amnesia over this. I believe he is from downtown Montreal.
We have people in our ridings and within our communities who are absolutely devastated. I spoke of Lucas at 100 Mile Elementary School. These families are financially ruined. They do not have a job to go back to. These mills are our major producers. They are the major tax base for our communities. When these mills leave, these jobs leave and the families leave.
Why are we angry? Why am I frustrated? It is because for 10 years, I have stood in the House and pressured these guys. The importance of softwood has not even been on their radar. This past weekend, the Prime Minister looks in the camera and says, “Who cares?”
He does not have a “burning issue”. This is a burning issue. It has been a burning issue for 10 years. We were promised a deal, under the first Trudeau administration, within 100 days. We heard of a new-found bromance between the Prime Minister and the new administration south of the border. There have been three administrations, and it has not been a priority. Tens of thousands of jobs have been lost. Over 200,000 jobs hang in the balance. We have the other side saying not to worry, that the cheques are in the mail.
Where is the job? That is what they want. They do not want charity. My riding is made up of proud families. There are a lot of families right now in communities all across our province. We will hear from all our colleagues who are here tonight taking part in this and that they are all affected by it. It is very real.
I appreciate the gentleman from Madawaska—Restigouche who spoke about the impact on his riding. The fact of the matter is that it is his government. They can blame anybody they want, but the reality is that it falls squarely at the foot of the Prime Minister, the previous prime minister and the government, in terms of why we do not have a softwood lumber agreement in place.
Whether it is the regulatory burdens that they have also done or the duplication, it is absolutely ruining this once proud industry, and that is shameful. We have absolutely decimated a cornerstone industry within our country, once proud and now absolutely devastated. We need to fight for it. They care. Forestry matters.
Madam Chair, I just want to correct the hon. member. I may seem to have been here for only a minute in the House, as I have just been elected for the first time. However, I was in business for 40 years. I have done a lot of business with pulp and paper and the forestry industry during my career, so I understand the industry very well.
Conservatives say they care. We have announced $1.25 million, including liquidity, help with salaries, transformation—
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Claude Guay: Just let me finish.
Madam Chair, if they are so smart and know better than we do what should happen, I have heard their comments and I would like to hear what they would offer. If the answer is that they would do a deal with the Americans, I would love to hear their strategy on how they would do a deal and what they would leave on the table and concede to the Americans in order to get a good deal. That is what the Prime Minister is trying to do.
Madam Chair, it is typical of a Liberal to deflect, put the blame on everybody else and ask, “What would you do?”
The Liberals have been in government for 10 years. They have done nothing for 10 years. In 10 years, we would have gotten a deal done. We did in our previous Conservative government. In 79 days, we got a deal done. Not only did we get a 10-year deal, but we negotiated a one-year grace period in between, which the Liberals squandered.
The failure lies squarely at their feet. They can deflect all they want and point fingers all they want. Those are weak arguments.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I rise in the House this evening with a great deal of pride and respect to represent and speak on behalf of the people in my riding, the workers, entrepreneurs and businesses that have been struggling for far too long.
In my region, in the Lower St. Lawrence, in Rimouski-Neigette, in La Mitis and in La Matapédia, the forestry industry is our lifeblood, just as it is for Les Basques, whose residents I salute.
We have to remember one thing. When the industry gets brushed aside and does not get support, the whole region suffers. This directly and indirectly hurts the area's entire economy.
I would like my colleague to tell me in concrete terms how the government can claim to be protecting our regions when it allows the United States to impose a 45% tax. That amounts to $10 billion in illegitimate tariffs. Furthermore, it refuses to implement the one measure that could immediately save jobs, which is to buy back half of the countervailing duties.
Why is the government abandoning our workers when Washington has been acting in bad faith for the past 40 years?
[English]
Madam Chair, the reality is that the government cannot say it is standing with the forestry workers.
Our hon. colleague mentioned something very appropriate: When one job is lost, the multiplier is that three to five jobs are affected. In my riding, it does not impact just Quesnel or 100 Mile if a mill goes down. It impacts our whole region. It impacts the car dealerships. It impacts the food and grocery stores. It impacts real estate. It impacts schools. It impacts the tax base for those municipalities.
The government abandoned the $10 billion that was left at the border by our forestry producers. It is the producers' money that the government abandoned because of some great strategic chess move, checkers move, or whatever it was. The government thought it was going to outsmart the guy down south, but the tariffs have tripled. That $10 billion is still sitting there, lost.
Madam Chair, the member for Cariboo—Prince George has been passionate about this. He has been hammering on this for over 10 years now. I recall being in the chamber in the other building when the trade minister at that time spoke of a framework within 100 days. We are now 106 months past that promise.
I would like to have the member for Cariboo—Prince George explain further why this is so important, not just for the individual jobs that are at stake here but to the entire communities that rely on those jobs and the spinoff jobs.
Madam Chair, it has been 2,900 days since the then trade minister stood up and said that the Liberals would have a framework or a deal within 100 days. It has been 2,900 days. We have had 10 years of failure, of their promising that “the cheque is in the mail”, telling us they can do this and we should just wait and see. They wonder why we are so frustrated.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I talk to a lot of business owners and workers in the forestry sector, and they all agree that what they are going through is the perfect storm. It is important to explain the context so that people really understand what is happening in the forestry sector.
Not that long ago, we experienced unprecedented forest fires that kept small forestry operations out of the forest even though they are an essential link in the chain. They lost a lot of money. This has impacted the entire chain.
After the forest fires, we had the woodland caribou problem, which caused anxiety all around and put work plans on hold. Even though the order was not finalized, it caused cash flow problems because the banks were nervous about the forestry sector. After that, we had insect infestations that made it very difficult for many in the forestry sector to access fibre.
On top of all that, since 2017, we have been dealing with the softwood lumber dispute with the United States with countervailing and anti-dumping duties. What we have here is a perfect storm. People in the forestry sector are calling our office to tell us that we should expect to see consolidation. Businesses are going to disappear. There are people who will not be able to fulfill their contracts. Jobs will be lost.
The forestry sector is the economic heart of many regions, such as mine, Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean. The same is true for Abitibi, the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé and the North Shore. Many regions of Quebec have small municipalities that rely exclusively on the forestry sector.
I have been here since 2019, and unfortunately I have never seen any real will on the part of the government, nor on the part of the opposition, which cared very little about the forestry issue. We are having a take-note debate this evening, and I hope that we will be able to find solutions for the people of Petit-Saguenay whose sawmill has shut down, for the people of Saint-Michel-des-Saints—I will come back to that later—and for the people of Amos and Port-Cartier. I hope that we will have enough respect to find solutions for these people.
As I was saying earlier, the forestry sector is experiencing a perfect storm. To understand it, we have to think of the sector as a big chain. When one link is cut, the entire chain stops working properly. What is happening now is not just equivalent to cutting just one link, but cutting five or six links. This crisis has been dragging on since the early 2000s. In the early 2000s, the forestry sector supported 95,000 jobs. Today, there are barely 30,000 left.
Not so long ago, the government announced measures. On August 5, it proposed to offer $700 million in loans. To this day, the government is still struggling to get that measure off the ground. The sawmill in Saint-Michel-des-Saints does not qualify for it. People here in Ottawa seem to have no clue when it comes to the forestry sector.
As a final point, I would like to talk about a proposal that has been around for some time, one that was made here by representatives from Chantiers Chibougamau, Arbec, Groupe Rémabec, Domtar, the FTQ and Unifor. These folks all came here to say that they had found a solution. Right now, $11 billion in anti-dumping and countervailing duties is lying dormant in trust in the United States. At first, people were saying that the government should buy back some of these duties. I understand that that is a big pill to swallow. That is why these people joined forces. They got together and decided that the best solution would be for the government to buy back 50% of the duties they had paid at the end of each month.
It was a compromise reached by people in the industry, who said that the government could buy back 50% of the duties they would have paid at the end of each month. What would that mean? It would mean that the industry could continue to operate and that no workers would lose their jobs. Those folks could continue to trade in softwood lumber with the United States while we wait for the worst of the crisis to subside, because right now construction in the United States has basically come to a standstill. Our companies could remain operational, which means that they will be able to respond in the future, when this government has its much-touted Build Canada Homes program up and running.
That seems to be the most acceptable solution, and it has the support of everyone in the industry. Unfortunately, it seems that the government refuses to listen. We are getting radio silence from it, not a “yes”, but not a “no” either.
Earlier, I tried to ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. Everyone is playing a game of cat and mouse, and no one wants to take a position. The forestry sector cannot wait any longer.
People are talking about a $500-million investment that will transform the sector, but the timing is off, because the transformation will take 10 years.
Someone needs to wake up. I want answers from my colleagues tonight.
Madam Chair, I agree with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois on the importance of this sector.
He knows full well that the government is pulling out all the stops to find a way to help the industry. I also want to thank him for his proposal.
I have two questions for him.
It is clear that this could be seen as a subsidy for U.S. consumers, since Canada would be paying the tariffs in their place. How can we ensure that it would not be perceived that way?
Washington would likely view this as a subsidy for Canadian companies and could decide to raise tariffs. We know how Washington reacts when foreign governments get involved or intervene. The President could wake up one morning and decide to double, triple or quadruple the tariffs. We have seen him do it in the past.
How can we prevent this from happening?
Madam Chair, I completely forgot to say that I would be sharing my time. I may speak again a little later. I will just quickly respond to my colleague. I do not know how that can be arranged.
There are already predatory hedge funds that are buying up between 30% and 70% of certain companies' countervailing duties. These hedge funds buy countervailing duties as though they were financial products, and that does not violate our international trade agreements.
The beauty of this is that the forestry sector managed to recover 80% of the money that was held captive in the United States when the last dispute was settled in 2016, despite the fact that we lost $1 billion, as we saw. In my opinion, it is not too much to ask the government to pay 50% of the money, knowing full well that the dispute will eventually be resolved. If the government is not prepared to do that, it is because it is afraid of being afraid or because it does not trust its ability to resolve this issue. The 50% is actually within reach. The money sitting in the United States belongs to the companies. The government cannot dispose of it as it pleases, since it belongs to the companies.
What we want is a settlement. Once there is a settlement, the government can pay itself back.
Madam Chair, like my colleague, I represent a region, Côte-du-Sud—Rivière-du-Loup—Kataskomiq—Témiscouata, that is obviously very heavily forested. It borders the United States.
In my region, as in his, jobs are extremely important in communities, especially smaller ones. He referred to some of the communities in his region. It is not just forestry jobs that are affected by the current U.S. tariffs. The entire community and municipal sector is affected by these events.
The solutions proposed by the industry are very good, but they inevitably carry risks.
I would like my colleague to explain what those risks are. Is it still worth it for the government to take those risks in order to give back to businesses what they have given so far, which is $10 billion over 10 years?
Madam Chair, to be very clear, there is a proposal that has been under consideration for a long time, which is that the government could buy back the entire $11 billion that is tied up in the United States. That is a massive sum. What we are presenting today is not that. At the end of each month, the government would buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties levied on every transaction with the United States.
Let me paint a clear picture. When $1,000 worth of wood is shipped to the United States, the forest producer pockets only $550, because $350 goes toward countervailing and anti-dumping duties, and another $100 goes toward customs duties and taxes. No economic sector can survive with ratios like that. Nobody can absorb a 45% liability.
If the government wants the forestry sector to survive intact, what it can do, while it waits to get through this crisis and for negotiate an agreement, is pay 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. This does not violate our trade agreements. Predatory hedge funds are already doing this. It would simply be a matter of the government giving the forestry sector a serious helping hand.
Madam Chair, I want to say hello to the people tuning in this evening from Rimouski-Neigette, La Mitis, La Matapédia and Les Basques.
This is an extremely important debate for the people back home in the Lower St. Lawrence. The forestry industry is a major economic pillar. It supports over 6,000 direct and indirect jobs. It encompasses nearly 250 businesses. Our region alone accounts for 10% of Quebec's softwood lumber production.
Forestry is a real driver of regional development. It contributes to the vitality of hundreds of municipalities and communities in the Lower St. Lawrence. Where I come from, a wooden pallet is not some prop that only can be found in stores. A wooden pallet represents a paycheque for our families. It represents a paycheque for workers in our region. It represents a sawmill that continues to open its doors every morning.
For the past 10 years, it has felt like the government was turning a deaf ear. It is almost as if it has so little understanding of the regions that it does not even understand what the forestry industry is. Now, the Americans are imposing 45% tariffs and nothing is being done. The government is in complete denial. We have been calling for an emergency debate for weeks. That was not a priority either. We have a Prime Minister who travels all over the world, yet he is not even capable of coming here to solve domestic problems.
I would like my colleague to explain to me whether he really thinks that the forestry industry and the regions of Quebec are a priority for the Liberal government.
Madam Chair, in everything I have heard the government say about the trade dispute with the United States, it keeps saying time and again that it is looking for an agreement on steel, aluminum and energy. It is important to understand the sectors involved. Aluminum is produced in Quebec. I know that aluminum processors are struggling, but primary aluminum producers are able to pass on the tariffs. They are able to survive for now, which is not the case for the forestry sector, where the companies are not passing the tariffs on. They are paying them. I do not know of any industry that can operate with a 35% to 45% loss. There are no such industries. No one can do that.
I do not know if they are waiting for companies to drown, but clearly there is either a misunderstanding or a lack of will. The government does not want to deal with the issue. It has not done so since 2019. Now we are in a period where there could be a breakdown, and we could lose the entire industrial landscape that has been developed in Quebec's forestry sector. In my opinion, all regions of Quebec will suffer in a way that the government has yet to calculate.
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his very thoughtful speech.
First and foremost, I would like to point out that an error was made in good faith during the debate. I call on all parties to allow us to repeat the second five-minute segment and, in the spirit of debate, to allow my colleague to share his speaking time with me, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We know that this debate is fundamental for Quebec, and Quebec's regions need to be heard.
I appeal for clemency and respect from the Chair.
The hon. member knows that we cannot seek unanimous consent in a take-note debate. I do not know what procedure would allow us to change the orders, but I will ask the clerks at the table.
The hon. member for Jonquière.
Madam Chair, initially, I was not supposed to share my time. I was supposed to speak for 10 minutes, but I was cut off after 5 minutes. The mistake was not ours.
I did not interrupt the hon. member, I simply indicated to him that he had five minutes left. Discussions are under way on this matter, and we may have an arrangement for the hon. members. Consequently, there is time for one question for the hon. member for Jonquière.
The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
Madam Chair, our government is working to negotiate an agreement with the United States, but not just any agreement. We want a good agreement that will serve the interests of Canadians—
Madam Chair, I have a point of order. The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche must be in his seat to speak.
Perhaps members are not aware, but they are not required to be in their seats during a debate of this nature. No, members do not have to be in their own seats.
The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.
Madam Chair, I will repeat my question.
Our government wants an agreement, but not just any agreement. We want an agreement that truly serves the interests of Canadians. The public is well aware that we are in a position of strength when we are united in our negotiations with the United States. During the last election campaign, however, the Bloc Québécois proposed that negotiations for Quebec be managed separately. The people of Quebec decided otherwise by electing 44 Liberal members from Quebec.
Does my Bloc Québécois colleague recognize, as his province's electorate does, that it is better to be united in these turbulent economic times than to try to sow division in our negotiations?
Madam Chair, there is a very simple principle: Quebec's elected officials should defend the interests of Quebec, and Ontario's elected officials should defend the interests of Ontario. This government's top priority right now is to build a pipeline and develop a carbon capture and sequestration strategy. The Liberals are all in agreement about that, but that does us absolutely no good in Quebec. The government is killing a key industry in Quebec. I hear very few Liberal members expressing concern about the forestry sector, but they are all there to applaud when it comes to a pipeline and to carbon capture and sequestration.
[English]
Madam Chair, I would like to inform my colleague from the Bloc Québécois that it is not just Quebeckers who are concerned about the forestry industry.
I will be sharing my time with my dear friend, the member for Trois-Rivières.
As a B.C. member of Parliament, this issue hits close to home, as it does for all British Columbians. It affects communities from Richmond to Prince George, which is why I will be speaking about what we are doing to support this critical industry.
As members are well aware, the global trade landscape is fundamentally changing as a result of increasingly persistent geopolitical tensions and persistent unfair trade practices. This transformation is also occurring in parallel with technological advancements, such as the increased adoption of artificial intelligence. As a result, the Canadian economy finds itself at a crossroads.
As a government, we are focused on building our strength at home, investing in domestic production and diversifying trade with stable and reliable economic partners and allies. Inherently, we are implementing a new industrial strategy that will transform our economy to make it more competitive, more productive and more resilient towards global shocks, including U.S. tariffs.
Richmond has a strong wood products sector, which is why I continue to work with the BC Council of Forest Industries. In 2022, forestry accounted for one-quarter of B.C.'s exports, contributed $17.4 billion to provincial GDP, raised $6.6 billion in taxes and accounted for over 100,000 jobs.
In the face of the unjustified tariffs from the United States, the government is supporting Canadian workers and firms through a range of industrial supports to build a more resilient economy. For example, to help companies recover from U.S. tariffs and support innovation, the government announced $5 billion towards the strategic response fund. This new program will help tariff-impacted firms to adapt, diversify and grow by supporting projects that build economic resilience, strengthen supply chains and pivot firms to better serve the domestic or international markets.
Additionally, to support small and medium-sized enterprises impacted by tariffs, the government is providing $1 billion to Canada's regional development agencies for the regional tariff response initiative, or RTRI. This is part of the government's industrial strategy to defend Canadian jobs, industries and supply chains by strengthening domestic firms through investments focused on productivity improvements and market diversification. These investments will strengthen Canada's industrial base in the face of continued global uncertainty.
The government also recognizes that certain economic sectors are more exposed to tariffs than others given targeted action by the United States, and that is why we are taking targeted action to help industries, such as the forestry and softwood lumber sectors. To ensure the forestry and softwood lumber sectors remain competitive and that they transform to succeed in a new geopolitical and trade order, the government is investing $1.2 billion to unlock the full potential of the industry. This includes $700 million for the Business Development Bank of Canada to ensure companies have financing and credit support, and $500 million towards Natural Resources Canada's forestry programs to support market and product diversification.
The government is committed to leveraging procurement as a means to prioritize the use of domestic lumber and steel in housing, construction and federal procurement. The government remains committed, working with Canadian workers and industry to ensure that the Canadian economy comes out of this turbulent period in a stronger and more resilient position than before.
Madam Chair, the Prime Minister promised to negotiate a win with President Trump by July 21, just eight months ago, but since the Liberals became government in 2015, 30 mills have closed in B.C. alone.
Despite the Liberal Prime Minister's promises that he would have a great relationship with the President, U.S. tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber have tripled to 45%. In B.C. alone over the past 10 years, there have been 10,000 direct jobs lost, and more than three to five times that in indirect job losses, with more to come unless things change. This fall, Sinclar Group Forest Products reduced its production by 40% in three of its mills in northern B.C., and 350 more mill workers were affected by the cuts.
When will the Prime Minister finally get a softwood lumber deal done with the U.S.?
Madam Chair, I thought the member opposite was going into his speech. Quite frankly, I am not sure I heard the question, but I empathize with every member who is concerned about the forestry industry and what is happening with the challenges we are facing with the United States and the tariff issues.
If the member had listened to what I talked about, he would know that I spoke a lot about diversifying the supports we are offering the industry at a critical time right now when we know that we need to get the best deal for Canadians, not just any deal.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, we all need to be aware of the situation and its impact. Last week, Arbec cut 100 jobs. Abitibi—Témiscamingue has been hit hard over the past year. Hundreds of jobs have been lost. I will ask the question. We all know the metaphor. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Clearly, that sound is not reaching Ottawa, it is not reaching the government, because it is not taking any action. In concrete terms, jobs and families are being affected. Plus, there is a network of small businesses in the background. There are entrepreneurs who buy machinery and use whatever room they have on their credit cards. How did the government and the Minister of Finance respond? They are going to provide a line of credit. At some point, it is going to take more than a line of credit to manage this situation. These people have expectations of the government.
What will the government do to provide meaningful assistance to workers in the forestry industry?
[English]
Madam Chair, when a tree falls, the earth shakes, and it was not us who made the tree fall. If we look at the fact that the United States has chosen to take up this fight with a trusted partner, we are doing what we are supposed to do to help the industry. We are not only providing supports for the industry and the affected workers and families; we are also helping the industry move forward in different ways.
Madam Chair, the B.C. forestry workers I know do not want handouts; they want their jobs back.
BC Council of Forest Industries president and CEO Kim Haakstad said recently:
The recent increase in U.S. tariffs and duties is a serious blow to an industry already strained by years of uncertainty, mill closures, and job losses. The federal government must make resolving the softwood lumber dispute a national priority.
My simple question for the Liberals is, when will the Liberal Prime Minister finally make resolving the softwood lumber dispute a priority?
Madam Chair, again, I empathize with every British Columbian standing up today and asking questions and talking about this.
An hon. member: They don't want EI; they want their jobs back.
Parm Bains: Madam Chair, we are not talking about handouts. Workers need support at a time when we are negotiating a deal, and we have to get the best deal for their families.
What we are hearing from the other side is to just give them any deal, with no consequences regarding a potential strong future for the industry. What we are talking about is prosperity for the industry and looking forward to a stronger industry. In the meantime, we need to ensure we are there for the families.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, it is a privilege to rise in the House today to take part in this debate on an issue that is very important in my region of Mauricie.
For more than 40 years, the softwood lumber dispute with the United States has been weighing heavily on the Canadian economy. Our neighbours' unfair arguments have been repeated over time, through changing priorities and different administrations, regardless of political affiliation. Canadians are deeply disappointed by the United States' decision to impose additional tariffs as part of its section 232 investigation.
These measures are completely unjustified, and Canada will vigorously defend its industry by all means possible. Although duties and tariffs have changed, one thing remains the same: Canada stands firm. We will accept nothing less than a fair deal for Canadian industry and families.
[English]
We will not settle.
[Translation]
We recognize that the economic uncertainty pervading the forestry sector has repercussions that extend beyond businesses. They touch the lives of children, families, teachers and educators, health care workers, first nations and countless communities. This means that our response needs to focus exclusively on Canadians whose daily lives are profoundly connected to our forests.
Last August, the Prime Minister announced a major forestry industry support program. I want to highlight one key component of this program: $700 million in loan guarantees through the Business Development Bank of Canada.
This initiative aims to keep businesses afloat in these difficult and volatile times by providing them with essential financing and credit when the usual sources run dry under the pressure of unfair U.S. tariffs. This is not a temporary situation, but a commitment to continuity, stability and future growth.
However, we know that liquidity alone does not guarantee the future. That is why this support is being rounded out by reskilling and development programs, enhancements to the EI program for workers in the softwood lumber sector and a $500-million investment to help the industry diversify its production and markets. Budget 2025 provides roughly $186 million in new funding to implement the buy Canadian policy, which takes effect this month and will be fully implemented by the spring.
For our softwood lumber sector and the value chains it supports, this means stable and predictable demand for Canadian lumber, panels and engineered products. It means new markets and more jobs in Canada. In concrete terms, this means affordable housing complexes where Canadian lumber is at the core of every construction project, with recreation centres, libraries and day care centres built with modular elements of Canadian wood, supporting families and young children, while creating local jobs.
We have always excelled in sustainable resource management and innovation. Today, more Canadian sawmills have an exceptional opportunity to modernize so they can produce mass timber and all kinds of wood for innovations that will allow us to build taller, safer and healthier buildings with a lower carbon footprint.
Our government has also launched Build Canada Homes to foster innovation and align investments with sustainability, so that new homes will be built with Canadian wood and will be affordable and climate-resilient. On this side of the House, we actually believe in climate change. One of the most promising opportunities for softwood lumber is in the construction of prefab homes.
Of course, Canada cannot build the future of the forestry sector without the leadership of indigenous peoples. Our government has prioritized not only partnership but also empowerment by funding indigenous-led forestry companies, supporting the construction of prefab homes in communities, and ensuring that knowledge, responsible management and economic benefits flow to first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.
[English]
The forestry sector is much more than an industry; it is the backbone of hundreds of communities, both rural and urban.
[Translation]
By investing in local construction, we create positive benefits for all communities. By encouraging innovation, we help small businesses in remote communities access new markets.
Canada's future is strong, resilient and united. We will build it together with Canadian wood, Canadian labour and Canadian determination.
[English]
Madam Chair, we heard another very long word salad from the Liberal member across the way. One thing the Liberals are great at is talking a lot.
The government has been in power for the last decade. I distinctly remember former prime minister Justin Trudeau and Obama were going to have a softwood lumber agreement signed, sealed and delivered when Obama came to Ottawa. However, he came to Ottawa and left with no softwood lumber agreement, and here we are, 10 years later, still with no softwood lumber agreement.
Thirty mills have closed in B.C. alone.
An hon. member: Oh, oh!
Bob Zimmer: Madam Chair, I am glad the member thinks it is a joke that 30 mills have closed and over 10,000 jobs have been lost. The Liberals need to take softwood lumber seriously, regardless of whether Brookfield has investments in it.
When are they finally going to get a softwood lumber deal done to provide surety to our softwood lumber workers in British Columbia?
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I worked at Global Affairs Canada for 20 years, including under the Harper government, when we were grappling with the same tariffs, the same problem. People can say whatever they want, but these issues have been around for years.
We fought, we always succeeded, and we will do the same this time around.
Madam Chair, when I hear my colleague say that her government will fight, that it will help, that it is aware of the problem, that this is an important issue and that it is dealing with climate change, there is definitely something I do not understand.
Does the government really care about this? If it did, it would already be taking concrete actions in connection with the measure my colleague did such a good job of describing, which we have been talking about for three weeks now.
People talk about loan guarantees. Seriously, given everything that happened in the auto industry, which is one of my files, if the government is confident and believes the forestry industry matters, it should be taking action starting tomorrow after this debate.
Madam Chair, action has already been taken.
Last week, I visited a company that specializes in prefabrication and met with Arbec workers who thanked me for the measures introduced by the Government of Canada. That does not mean that the situation is not difficult for industries; we understand that. It is also difficult for workers and their families. However, we are here and we are taking meaningful action.
When we talk about the Build Canada Homes program, we are actually talking about fast-tracking the construction industry's development in order to create new opportunities. In all the prefabrication companies I visit, the walls are made with Canadian wood, Quebec wood. That is what we are trying to do. That is why we have developed a thoughtful and well-designed budget.
Furthermore, when it comes to combatting climate change, the Build Canada Homes investment policy launched on Saturday makes it clear that one of our investment priorities is the energy efficiency of the materials used, in order to reduce our environmental footprint.
Madam Chair, I would like to remind the House that during question period today, the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources said that additional assistance for the softwood lumber industry would be announced this week. I just wanted to point that out.
My question for the parliamentary secretary is this. At the Standing Committee on Natural Resources, the CEO of Domtar said that one of the measures likely to help the industry would be to shift 2% to 3% of Canadian demand to mass timber, which would increase prices and make the industry more economically viable.
How does the government intend to ensure that Build Canada Homes programs promote the use of mass timber?
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
Indeed, the investment policy of Build Canada Homes clearly promotes the use of Canadian wood, including mass timber. It also encourages developers to use wood for the construction of large structures. This is not really being done in Quebec yet, but it is being done extensively in British Columbia. The building code allows for buildings of up to 18 storeys. This type of program will help accelerate development and support our lumber industry.
Madam Chair, I will manage to finish this debate, I promise.
I do not share the enthusiasm of my colleague from Trois-Rivières and my friend the parliamentary secretary.
As for the announcements made on August 5 regarding the $700 million in access to liquidity and the $500 million earmarked for improving production chains, unfortunately I am hearing on the ground that the $700 million will be used up by March. There will be nothing left for access to liquidity. However, I would remind members that this $700 million is intended to compensate for the $10 billion that is currently being held captive in the United States.
I also found out today that the people affected by the closure in Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints do not have access to the $700 million for administrative reasons that escape me. They do not have access to it. The 150 employees in Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints who are unemployed because of the mill closure will remain unemployed. Between August 5 and the time things started moving in late October, early November, I feel like it took a very long time before action was taken.
It is also important to point out that Building Canada Homes can be part of the solution, but we will never be able to replace the entire American market. I take no pleasure in saying that. People in the forestry sector say that we will never be able to completely replace the American market. We need to accept that. If we want to achieve that, the forestry sector will have to undergo a major transformation, and that is not going to happen in five or six months, or even in two or three years. It will take 10 to 15 years. What we need during that 10-to-15-year period is concrete action.
As I said, we want to talk about concrete measures this evening. I would like to share a few suggestions with my colleagues right now. I will come back to payments for countervailing duties at the end of my speech.
We could implement a program modelled on the Canada emergency business account, which we used during the COVID‑19 pandemic, by offering interest-free loans that are conditionally repayable, in part, to self-employed workers and forestry subcontractors. That is important. When I talk about subcontractors and self-employed workers, it is important to realize that the forestry sector is an industry with people whose job profiles are very different. Liquidity programs are very little help to subcontractors and the self-employed. However, if the government sets up a program similar to the emergency account, it could help those people.
The government could set up a wage subsidy program to enable laid-off workers to keep their jobs. What we want to do with the people who are in limbo because of sawmill closures, such as in Saint‑Michel‑des‑Saints, is to keep them working so that they do not disappear into other sectors, and we do not end up with weakened industries once the construction crisis in the United States is over.
As part of the renegotiation of CUSMA, we need to ensure that the dispute mechanism is better structured in order to prevent the American stalling tactics that we are currently seeing. The Americans always lose at international trade tribunals. However, since the United States plays dirty, it is continuing the dispute.
The allegations made by the American lobby only involve wood from public forests, so we are asking for an exemption for wood from private forests. It has long been known that the Americans claim that Canada's forestry sector is being illegally subsidized with very low stumpage fees, which is no longer the case. However, the special status of private forests, which are in another sector, is never recognized.
We must ensure recognition for Quebec's forestry system, which operates on an auction model and complies with free trade requirements. We must create an industrial development strategy focused on increased resource processing and on research to develop new products. The government may be working on this, but it will take time, as I said earlier.
This brings me to what I consider to be the key measure. I want to explain it properly, because I was a bit rushed earlier. Where does the real problem with countervailing duties come from? It comes from the fact that 45% of all money in forestry transactions is held captive. We could recover that 45% if the government agreed to pay 50% of the anti-dumping countervailing duties at the end of each month.
If that were to happen, we would save jobs and support the forestry sector. The government would be guaranteed repayment once the dispute is resolved.
It would not cost anything, no one would pay for it and we would save one of Quebec's leading economic sectors.
[English]
Madam Chair, I want to start off by saying I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.
I want to thank the great people of Columbia—Kootenay—Southern Rockies for their support.
For the last decade, Canada has been locked in the same exhausting, costly and frankly predictable dispute with the United States over softwood lumber. For a decade, it has been Canadian workers, Canadian families and Canadian communities who have been forced to shoulder the burden of the ongoing trade conflict. It is not a new issue and not a surprise. It has been staring at us in the face for years, yet somehow, despite all the warnings, all the promises and all the opportunities to act, the Liberal government has failed to secure a stable, lasting agreement, leaving the forestry sector to navigate the longest period in Canadian history without a negotiated settlement. It is not progress. It is not leadership. It is failure.
Softwood lumber is not just another commodity. It is one of the foundational pillars of Canada's economy. It supports more than 200,000 direct and hundreds of thousands of indirect jobs. It sustains hundreds of rural, northern and indigenous communities. It feeds our domestic construction industry, fuels innovation and generates billions of dollars in exports. When the lumber sector thrives, Canada thrives, but when it is threatened the shockwaves ripple across the entire country.
Right now, the sector is under threat. Punitive U.S. duties, which are unfounded, protectionist and arbitrary, continue to hammer Canadian producers. Nearly $10 billion in duties have now been accumulated. That is $10 billion that should be supporting workers, innovation and reinvestment here at home sitting instead in an international account.
What has the Liberal government done in response? It has done nothing that has made any meaningful difference, nothing that has moved the needle for struggling mills and nothing that signals to Americans or Canadians that the dispute is being treated with the seriousness it deserves. Year after year, we hear the same lines from the government: that they are working on it, that talks are ongoing and that a solution is close. However, here we are 10 years later with less certainty, less stability and fewer tools to protect our producers than we had before.
Let us talk about the past deals for a moment because history matters here. Previous softwood agreements, when they actually existed, provided at least a degree of predictability. They allowed producers to plan, invest and grow. The 2006 softwood lumber agreement provided clarity and protection, including caps, and prevented the kinds of disproportionate duties we are seeing today, especially for value-added producers who are now punished for simply selling higher-value finished products. That agreement did not happen by accident but because Canada had a government unwilling to accept endless uncertainty, a government prepared to negotiate with focus and determination, and a government that understood the needs of the forestry sector.
What do we have now? We have a vacuum, a leadership gap, a government that appears more comfortable with reacting to a crisis than preventing them. Without an agreement, investment dries up, mills do not modernize, producers hesitate to hire, projects get shelved and opportunities vanish. Once the jobs are gone, once a mill closes, once a community loses its primary economic engine, it rarely comes back.
We are seeing that risk at play across the country. British Columbia is already dealing with reduced harvest levels, wildfire impacts and fibre shortages. It must get more value from less wood just to survive. How can that happen in an environment where the federal government cannot secure predictable market access?
From our fourth-generation sawmill, Kalesnikoff, Ken said that the softwood lumber dispute is beyond its control and that the current rates of 45% tariffs are unsustainable. He said that businesses are drawing on their lines of credit to pay payroll. At J.H. Huscroft, a 100-year mill, Justin said, “We need a plan for three years, just to feel secure” and he said that they have a million dollars in annual shipping bonds, but they don't have access to it.”
At another small family-operated mill, Porcupine, Craig said, “The combined 45% plus tariff is a severe challenge to any business in the industry.” At the ATCO sawmill, with 70 years in business, Scott said that all mills rely on each other for success and that when one operation fails, everyone fails. At the logging contractor Hummers, Nick said that he had to lay off half their staff, that shipping to the U.S. was not economical and that Europe was slow as well. He said that even local mills have cancelled some of their orders.
The question is simple: How long will they be forced to wait before the government finally delivers the leadership it has been promising for a decade?
Madam Chair, we have already talked about the fact that, with negotiations, we cannot just magically wish them to go better, but I certainly welcome any suggestions on how to deal with Donald Trump.
I wanted to turn to a comment that was made about B.C. and the fact that not all the tenures are being used, which I think is true. The forestry sector, of course, to be successful needs four things. It needs economic access to imports, specifically timber for sawmills. It needs access to capital. It needs access to markets. It needs the talent.
Does the member opposite have any opinions as to which of those levers would be best pulled in order to expand the B.C. forestry sector?
Madam Chair, that is for sure a complicated issue, especially after 10 years of the market, the lumber industry, slowing down and losing mills. I do not know how many mills have been lost in B.C., but it has been maybe 10 or 15. Once we lose them, it is really hard to get them back.
For British Columbia, I agree that we need to work with the province as well for tenures for our logging, but it also takes leadership from Ottawa. We really need action, not words. We really need to see something produced, not just some comments about people being given money. Again, they are not looking for handouts; we all agree on that. They are looking for stability. They want to be able to predict what they are going to do in the next three years so that they can actually start to upgrade their mills and do more with the lumber they have. A lot of the mills now are actually really specialized and to do that, they need more equipment and it takes more investment.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I want to clarify something. In Abitibi-Témiscamingue, 600 people have temporarily lost their jobs in the forestry industry over the past year. Obviously, these people still have hope.
That said, the forestry industry is an entire ecosystem. There are forestry contractors who work and invest in machinery, who take out loans ranging from $100,000 to $300,000 for machinery without any guarantees. These people have not received any support from the government. Is there no way to propose solutions that are tailored to their situation?
It is all well and good to talk about Donald Trump, the United States and how to proceed, but there are people suffering on the ground. How is the government going to help them? I look forward to hearing some solutions.
[English]
Madam Chair, it is really about innovation and it is about our sawmills moving ahead. For example, one mill is building modular homes and is trying to work with laminate products. It is investing its own money in it, but when it sees there are 45% tariffs down south and how difficult it is, it has a hard time surviving. How does it continue to invest money when it is losing money?
I brought up the example of a business that is actually using a line of credit to make payroll; that is not sustainable. We need to go back to that predictability. We need to know where we are going with softwood lumber across Canada, and we are not there.
Madam Chair, when the Liberals were elected, they were elected to save us from Donald Trump and his tariffs. Apparently, lately that does not matter; it is who cares whether he wants to talk about it or not. We have now heard that it is a long-term problem.
Can my colleague say whether it is a problem of Donald Trump and his tariffs or of long-term Liberal neglect?
Madam Chair, that is a really good question, but the answer certainly is twofold. It is Trump with the tariffs, but it is also 10 years of no action. We cannot go 10 years without dealing with the problem and expect everything to go smoothly. The lumber industry has been crying for the last 10 years. It wants a deal. It wants a softwood lumber deal. There is $10 billion in a bank account that it cannot get access to. Now we are closing mills across Canada that are likely not going to come back, so that increases production in the United States and means less for us.
How do we build our homes without sawmills? Let us think about that for a second. Where is our strategy to build these homes if we do not have any sawmills?
[Translation]
Madam Chair, I rise today with a heavy heart for 25 families in Petit-Saguenay, a community of 600 people in my riding whose sawmill closed its doors. Twenty-five fathers and mothers are going home not knowing how they will pay for groceries and rent at the end of the month.
I am also thinking of all the other sawmills, workers and communities that have gone through this same nightmare since the agreement expired in 2015. It has been exactly 10 years since we last had a softwood lumber agreement. For 10 years, this Liberal government has allowed our workers to be crushed by American tariffs, which were just increased to 45%.
Since this Prime Minister took office, tariffs have tripled despite the fact that, during the last election campaign, he got elected by saying that he was the man who would meet the moment and the right person to negotiate with President Trump. He even said that the tariffs would be gone by July 1. Today is November 25.
In 2006, Stephen Harper managed to get the softwood lumber agreement done in just 80 days. When Trudeau arrived in 2015, he said there would be an agreement within the first 100 days. What happened? It is the same old story. Nothing happened. To make matters worse, tariffs are exploding and mills are closing.
Since 2015, mills have closed in Quebec, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, British Columbia and across Canada. That has meant the loss of 25,000 direct jobs and 90,000 indirect jobs. Villages that rely solely on the lumber industry are threatened with having to shut down. As a result, businesses are closing their doors, young people are leaving and those communities will never see them again.
Over 200,000 Canadian families depend on this industry. Forestry work is inextricably linked to the future of regions like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and many others. Our political leaders need to realize that. Our leaders need to get their heads out of their Excel spreadsheets and remember that there are real human beings behind the numbers, workers who care deeply about the forestry industry and have it in their blood. It is often passed down from father to son, from generation to generation, and for many, it is a family affair.
The situation today is no different than it was 10 years ago. The problem is that we have a government that lacks the will to reach an agreement. We know that negotiating with the Americans has never been easy. They are always protectionist, as sector experts would say. That is why the industry is pleading with Ottawa to take urgent action, not to drag its feet.
Our loggers, truckers and factory workers are not looking for handouts. They do not want photo ops. They do not want lip service and, above all, they do not want phony programs. They want an agreement that allows them to sell their lumber at a fair price and keep their dignity.
I will put the question directly to the Prime Minister. When will he follow Stephen Harper's example and do what he did in 80 days? When will he stop making promises and start living up to expectations? Is he going to keep standing by as he watches our regions perish while the Americans line their pockets?
If the Liberal government has failed to reach an agreement after 10 years, three different presidents and billions of wasted dollars, it should make room for a Conservative government that will actually fight for Canada and for our workers. Our forestry workers—
The hon. member's time has expired.
The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. Chair, no matter how my colleague presents it, I believe that everyone in this House agrees that this is a terrible situation and that the impact it is having on the industry, families and workers is unfortunate.
I would like to remind him of something. Perhaps the interpretation was not working earlier, but today the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources announced that additional assistance for the industry would be coming this week. We are taking note of feedback from the industry. We are in constant discussion with the industry to stay on top of the situation.
I hear my colleagues talking about negotiations, about the fact that an agreement is needed and that it should be done—
Mr. Chair, what I find difficult about all this is that, in the 10 years this government has been in power, no agreement has been negotiated and three American presidents have come and gone. On top of that, Mr. Trudeau was apparently on very good terms with Mr. Obama. There is absolutely no will to address this issue, and that is what the forestry industry is criticizing. Does the government really want an agreement?
The industry needs stability and predictability. That is important for the sector. We need to eliminate the uncertainty. We need an agreement, and it seems as though there is no will to reach one.
Mr. Chair, I hope the people listening tonight, especially the government, can understand that where there is a will, there is a way.
When it is time for Ottawa to help the oil industry, the cheque is signed mere days or even hours later. When it is time to help the auto industry, then presto, Ontario is up and running.
However, when it is time to help Quebec's forestry industry, what is the rush? They take their time. We have had countervailing duties for 10 years now. Tariffs are at 45%, and yet the government is patting itself on the back. Businesses are closing their doors. People are losing their jobs. Now they are telling us that they plan to announce something else on Thursday, so we had better stay tuned. This is ridiculous. The Prime Minister has been travelling all over the world, but he cannot even come help his own businesses here at home.
When it is time to help Ontario and Alberta yet again, he is there for them, but when it is time to help Quebec, where is this Liberal government?
Mr. Chair, we can talk about the assistance measures the government is offering. First of all, they are never for the regions and they are never for our small businesses. Who gets hit the hardest in all this? It is the supply chain. It is the people who cut the wood, bring it to the sawmill, and go into debt to pay for machinery. Today, they are getting hit very hard.
The government's assistance measures are wrapped in endless red tape. It seems like the government is doing everything it can to prevent people from accessing this assistance.
[English]
Mr. Chair, we keep hearing about Donald Trump. Donald Trump has been in power for five years; the Liberal government has been in power for 10 years. Somehow, five years just slipped through the cracks, but I think my colleague already addressed that.
When we heard earlier from the Liberals, I could barely believe it when it came out that the food price problem was a matter of climate change. I am wondering if the member thinks climate change is causing the softwood problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, the issue I have with this government is that, during the election campaign, the current Prime Minister told everyone that he was the right man for the job of negotiating. I remember that very well. He was proud to say so. People believed him and now they are disappointed. They are still waiting. Absolutely nothing has been accomplished since he came to power. People's disappointment is palpable.
Again, I think there is no leadership on the government side.
[English]
Mr. Chair, our government is there and will continue to be there to help the Canadian softwood lumber industry. The forestry sector is core to our economy and our Canadian identity.
My own family's story has been interwoven with Canadian forestry for centuries. My father David Hogan grew up in mill towns and worked summers at the newsprint mill. My grandfather John Hogan was a career pulp worker who worked at mills in Baie-Comeau, Masson-Angers, Chandler and Port Hawkesbury. His father spent his career in forestry. While it was not an unbroken line, as it was sometimes uncles, brothers or cousins, that is the way it was for generations in my family, back to when Antoine Bouchard married Marie-Madeleine Simard in Saguenay in the early 1700s.
[Translation]
It is true, the member for Jonquière and I are eighth cousins.
[English]
My family owes an enormous debt to the good jobs that the forestry sector provided then, provides now, and will provide well into the future. In fact, this entire country owes that debt. To make good on it, we must secure and protect this industry, and ensure for it and those who work within it a growing and prosperous future.
[Translation]
This is a moral obligation, but it also makes sound economic and environmental sense. The sector is increasingly recognized as a key aspect of greener construction and a more sustainable lifestyle. Lumber is a renewable resource, a carbon sink and a competitive advantage.
Canada has more forests than almost any other country in the world, and the quality of the wood we produce is exceptional thanks to the natural advantages of our climate and our forestry industry's role as a global leader in forest stewardship. High quality creates high demand, especially from the United States.
However, the industry is going through a period of crisis. Our long-standing softwood lumber trade dispute with the Americans has reached a point where combined tariffs and duties now average 45%. The United States is not just our number one export market. At 85%, it basically is the market.
The market is one we built and earned based on the quality and accessibility of our products. Now, however, we are being shut out of that market because of protectionist policies. The situation is bad for American consumers and American builders and bad for the Canadian forestry sector. It is bad for forestry towns and bad for forestry workers and their families.
[English]
The American action only harms; it does not help. It harms the Americans, of course. They do not have the lumber production to meet their domestic demand. They do not have the foresters, the mill workers or the supply chains. There is no reasonable time frame in which the United States will become self-sufficient in lumber. Instead, it will pay more to buy from us, the Europeans or the South Americans, and it will get less: lower-quality timber and smaller lumber.
Of course, the American action also badly harms Canada. We do not have another market of the U.S.'s size or as close. As good as our product is and as talented as our forestry workers are, diversifying away from a market that was built up over centuries will take time.
Both we and the Americans need a softwood lumber deal. We realize this, and they will. We will work at every level to get this deal. In the meantime, we must support our forestry communities: the companies, the workers, the families and the businesses that rely on the mills being open.
Many mills are closing or curtailing. As good as the Canadian product is and as much as American demand remains, having 45% combined tariffs and duties is very difficult.
As I said, combatting this decline is not only a moral imperative; it is an economic one. When workers and their families leave these communities, they do not always come back. Expertise is lost that takes decades to rebuild. Forest roads that support mining exploration are not built. Unharvested timber rots in tenures, and that can create fire risk. Rural hubs lose the vital services that are no longer able to be sustained.
[Translation]
We have discussed these measures to support the forestry sector several times in the House. I will briefly review them. First, there is $50 million for workers. However, even though this is necessary and important, forestry workers do not want employment insurance benefits. They want to work. They want a future for their industry.
That is why we are also providing $700 million in liquidity supports, $500 million to increase local processing and value-added production, as well as strict rules under the buy Canadian policy that require the use of Canadian lumber in general and for the Build Canada Homes program in particular. We are strengthening our domestic and export markets.
These investments and policies are in addition to a $5-billion strategic fund that will help companies affected by tariffs pivot, adapt and innovate.
[English]
We have also expanded eligibility for the existing investment tax credits to include systems that generate electricity, heat or both from waste biomass through budget 2025. This helps sawmills struggling with tariffs and duties by incentivizing new clean energy uses for residuals.
I want to thank the member for Courtenay—Alberni for his advocacy on this file. It supports meaningful investment in our forestry sector.
There is more to do, and this government will do more. It is my sincere hope that we will use tonight's take-note debate to elevate a conversation and to talk about other ways to support the softwood lumber industry in Canada in the short term, as we look to get a deal and as we look to reorient in the long term.
Therefore, I ask, what other supports could be considered for workers in mill communities to keep workers employed if possible and financially supported when necessary, and to keep communities vibrant? What other supports could be considered for companies in the sector to keep balance sheets strong, to keep mills open and to support diversification?
[Translation]
On that note, I would like to talk about our future, the future of Canada's forestry sector. It would be naive to believe that a softwood lumber agreement will solve all our problems once and for all. We have had softwood lumber agreements before. If we do not want to be at the mercy of some future junior senator from Oregon, we must diversify our forestry sector. We must diversify our markets and we must diversify our products.
[English]
I want to be clear: We cannot replace U.S. demand in any reasonable time frame. It is our largest market, and the U.S. already builds houses out of wood. Our mills are tooled to their products and our continent and existing infrastructure make north-south transportation easy and cheap, but the U.S. market needs us too. We used to provide 32% of its softwood lumber, and after all the hostile policy we still provide 25% of its softwood lumber, but the share of its domestic production that has increased over time is negligible. The share is made up by new imports. The U.S. simply does not have the wood.
In this lose-lose scenario, our hundreds of forestry communities are feeling it more. If we want to increase our leverage, we need to shift exports away from the United States. We do not need to shift all or even most; even a few percentage points of diversification increases our leverage relative to that of the U.S. and makes sustaining a deal, a good deal that benefits both sides, more likely in the future.
As I close, I want to say that a healthy forestry sector requires four things. First is access to economic inputs, timber or residuals, depending on the part of the business. Second is access to the capital required to be competitive in this sophisticated and mechanized business. Third is access to markets, product lines and geographies, much of which require the right infrastructure. Fourth is the talent, and we have centuries of talent spread across hundreds of forest communities. Canada, working with all jurisdictions and indigenous peoples, needs to consciously build and maintain our capacity in all four.
[Translation]
The Canadian forestry industry will ultimately succeed because of our strong foundations. We have high-quality wood, we have trade relationships around the world and we have the talent. With the support of this government and the House, we can succeed faster. We can get through this period and lay the groundwork for a forestry sector that can thrive for countless generations.
[English]
Let us get all ideas on the table, maybe beyond “we should just try harder”, and work collaboratively to support an industry that means so much to so many of us and is so integral to the story of Canada.
Mr. Chair, the member opposite admits we need the U.S. market and claims the U.S. market needs us, but the European Union negotiated a 10% flat rate with the United States while we sit at 45%, and purchases are rapidly shifting. The Prime Minister, in the meantime, says that he is in no hurry to make a deal because this is not a burning issue.
What is the member opposite going to do when demand has shifted and we are still sitting at a 45% tariff with no jobs?
Mr. Chair, reality is obviously much more complicated. Europe has a 10% tariff, but it is quite far away and does not have the natural advantage of geography that we do. It also does not have the quality of wood we do. One of the benefits of Canadian lumber production is that it is built in an environment that is colder, so the wood becomes more dense. It also allows, because we do it in a more natural sense, more competition among trees, which again increases the density, as opposed to the plantation models that the Europeans enjoy.
Therefore, we have a natural competitive advantage. That demand will still be there when we get ourselves a market, and we are going to work very hard in the meantime to support our forestry sector and make sure it is still there when that market comes back.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I congratulate my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, on his speech. It is a pleasure to work with him. I know that he is a sensible, non-partisan guy. I also know that, at committee, he heard about the solution I mentioned earlier, which was proposed by Chantiers Chibougamau, Remabec, Domtar and union representatives.
I would like to get a clear answer from my colleague this evening. He is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Does the Liberal government think that this proposal can be studied, or will it be dismissed? I would like a clear answer. I think that the people in the forestry sector expect one.
Mr. Chair, yes, it is possible.
Softwood lumber exporters are clearly facing significant debt and need financial assistance in the form of cash flow. However, there are risks associated with such a program, as we have heard. That said, we are open to considering all options that could help boost cash flow and strengthen the sector's financial situation.
Mr. Chair, I am very pleased to say that the Groupe Crête lumber mill is in my riding, in Chertsey. When we met with the representatives of Groupe Crête, they explained that they were having a lot of problems with forest access. The Quebec forestry regime was introduced some years ago. It was denounced by the industry as unworkable, and then abandoned.
I would like to hear what my hon. colleague has to say about that.
[English]
Mr. Chair, my colleague's question touches on a couple of important points worth highlighting. First, any support of the forestry sector is going to require collaboration with the provinces, because it is simply not going to work otherwise. When we look at tenure in particular and at economic access to fibre, that really is in the provincial hands primarily. There are things the federal government can do to incent, but there are challenges.
However, the federal government has the ability to assist with the access to new markets and new products. In particular, we have funds at NRCan, such as one called IFIT, which helps retool and allow the creation of new products that, in many cases, can avoid tariffs because they are value-add.
Mr. Chair, first I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for talking about working together for the establishment of a biomass tax credit, which will support the paper mills in Port Alberni and Crofton on Vancouver Island. However, we need more of that collaboration.
Steel, aluminum and energy all have working tables to mandate fast-tracking solutions when it comes to duties. What we need is for the federal government to create a federal industry national softwood working table with a mandate to fast-track solutions on duties, liquidity and Canada's negotiating posture so we finally secure a fair and durable softwood lumber agreement.
Will the parliamentary secretary commit to doing that today and work in that collaborative spirit?
Mr. Chair, it is an excellent idea, and while it is not my place alone to be able to make that decision, I am certainly supportive of it and will work with the department.
Mr. Chair, in response to my last question, the hon. member explained some of the reasons he thinks Canadian lumber is special, which give us some time to make a deal, but I have spoken to the forestry companies and workers in my communities, and I can tell members that they say we do not have time to wait.
The government has announced some limited relief, yet it seems to be in no hurry to move on. What people in my community want to know is what the government is going to do when the limited relief runs out and what the families who have lost their livelihoods are going to do when their savings run out.
Mr. Chair, obviously the hearts of everybody here tonight in this take-note debate go out to anybody who is affected, and I really, truly hope that we as a chamber can come up with solutions to make their lives better, which is exactly what the purpose of this take-note debate is.
We will be announcing additional supports this week. I really encourage the opposition to reach out with their ideas. I appreciate the ideas that the opposition has provided to date, because we are in this together and this country is in this together. If we want to move forward strongly, we need to move forward together.
Mr. Chair, we saw during COVID that we can move quickly. The government announced $1.2 billion in relief, but that is not getting to the companies in real time. We are hearing that there is a huge disconnect when it comes to the banks and the liquidity that is needed right now.
Will the parliamentary secretary and will the government act in the same urgency as we did with COVID in getting relief out the door? Time matters right now. Every day that goes by, we see more and more mills close and more and more jobs lost.
Mr. Chair, I completely agree: We need to be seized with urgency on this. In fact, when forestry executives informed the minister on Thursday that they were having trouble accessing these funds, he reached out to the major banks, which are responsible for delivering this BDC product. The Minister of Energy and Natural Resources talked with the banks last night to make sure they were as seized with the urgency as we are.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, in my riding of Madawaska—Restigouche, the forestry industry is a key driver of the economy. I have regular contact with people involved in the industry, including workers, business owners and intermediate players, such as forestry operators, who collect timber from the forest but without necessarily exporting products to the United States. These people are also affected by the tariffs.
I would like my colleague to explain why the various support measures in place now or coming in the future are also important to these forestry sector intermediaries.
Mr. Chair, I thank the member for his question. Yes, all that is interconnected.
[English]
The forestry sector is an ecosystem. I think the hon. member for Jonquière described it as a chain. I completely agree, and it falls apart if any part gets weak. When we talk about supports for the forestry sector, one of the things I discussed in my remarks was that we need to talk about the communities around it as well. We need to make sure that the overall ecosystem is supported.
When we talk about a sawmill's economic viability, there is the dimensional lumber that comes out the other side, but there are also the residuals that need to find a market in pulp. On the flip side, if someone has a pulp mill and the sawmill goes down, they are not going to have economic access to residuals, so we need to talk about keeping entire clusters up, and we need to be supporting the industry as a whole, not as individual pieces.
I think that is an absolutely spot-on point.
Mr. Chair, the government keeps trying to tell us that $1.2 billion is a big number while telling us that $78.3 billion is a small number. The Liberals say that relief is on the way, but our communities tell me that it is going to come too late. The assistance programs that this government is rolling out, first of all, took six months to announce, and I am told that companies are being told that it will be three to six months before their applications are even adjudicated.
One in six manufacturing jobs and one in 28 jobs in all of B.C. depends on forestry. Why is it taking this government so long to act?
Mr. Chair, obviously both are big numbers. We know that the number in support of forestry needs to get even bigger, so stay tuned, because later this week we will have something additional to say on that.
In terms of the flowing of funding from the previous announcements, we have just discussed the $700 million in liquidity, which is flowing right now. That money is making its way through. Some businesses have gotten that money, but not enough, which is exactly why the minister read the riot act to banks, to be blunt.
In terms of the other money, that is both an extension of the IFIT program, which is happening right now, and additional funds that will be available in the new year. Now that the budget has passed, let us get that budget implementation act going too. However, that money is for longer-term retooling; it is not about immediate support.
Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.
I am honoured to rise today to speak on behalf of forestry workers in my riding on Vancouver Island. I want to be clear that the debate is not just about forestry workers; it is about whole communities and about broken promises from the Prime Minister and the government.
It has been months of the Prime Minister's making promises he just cannot keep. He ran his campaign this year on the promise of getting Canadians a deal with the United States. He even gave himself a deadline of July, but there has been nothing except a tripling of tariffs on softwood lumber. Tariffs on lumber are now at an industry-killing 45%. Mills cannot afford this, and workers cannot afford to lose their jobs, but that is the situation that mills and workers in my riding are facing.
As we have heard from my colleagues tonight, it is not just on Vancouver Island but across British Columbia and, indeed, across Canada. However, this is a failure of not just the last few months. Canadians have been waiting a decade for a softwood lumber deal. We have had 10 years of promises from the Liberal government to get a deal signed, yet there is nothing.
There has been over eight months for the Prime Minister to get a deal with President Trump, yet just this weekend the Prime Minister said, “Who cares?” when asked about the last time he spoke with President Trump. I will tell the House that forestry workers care, Canadians care and I care.
Families in my riding are scared. Shifts are curtailed. Workers are not working. Families who are already struggling with the rising cost of living are at risk of being unable to feed and house themselves. Amanda, a woman in my riding whose husband works at a local mill, said that she is terrified of what will happen should her husband lose his job. She works full-time, but she knows that her job alone cannot support her family of six. She does not know how she will afford to raise her four daughters if curtailment continues or, worse, if a total shutdown happens.
I have heard stories of families moving into campers because of curtailed shifts. They cannot afford to keep their homes. Across the riding, there are now tiny villages of people living in their campers.
The effect of the closures is not limited to forestry jobs. I want to be clear that the closures have affected entire communities, beyond those jobs. Across Canada, over 25,000 direct jobs have been lost in the forestry industry. Those losses have led to approximately 90,000 indirect job losses. That means that for one direct job lost, there have been three to five indirect jobs also lost.
When these workers lose their job, they stop contributing to the economy. For some communities that means that grocery stores are closed, restaurants are out of business and shops do not have the clientele to survive. Do members not believe me? Let us walk down the main street of Duncan, Crofton or Chemainus, and I will show them businesses that are shut down all over, even without full closures at the mills.
Beyond workers, the mills themselves contribute a significant amount in tax dollars to the communities they are a part of. For example, Crofton Mill in my riding contributes approximately $6.5 million annually in municipal taxes. That helps vital infrastructure and community programs in North Cowichan. These are programs that would not survive without that money coming in, which makes the closures even more detrimental to the community.
The closures are not just about the forestry industry; they are signs of a total economic failure. The situation is dire for mills, for workers and for our communities. The party opposite's solutions are subsidized loans, handouts and benefit packages. This is the equivalent of a band-aid on a severed artery. Worse yet, the Liberal band-aid solution is funded by more debt and more printed money that, as we know, as always, serves to make our economic problems only worse, a vicious cycle of handouts funded by debt that only extend a failing industry by months rather than rebuild it.
The solution is to negotiate a fair deal on tariffs with the United States. The Prime Minister has proven that he is either incapable, unable or not caring. Forestry workers would probably say that he is all of the above.
That is why I am calling on the Prime Minister to do what he promised and deliver a deal on softwood lumber to protect our hard-working loggers, truckers and mill workers. I am calling on the Prime Minister to care. If if he cannot or does not care to get the deal he promised Canadians, it is time for him to step aside and allow the rest of us to do what we were elected to do, to fight for Canadian jobs—
Mr. Chair, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
My colleague has been in Parliament for only a short time, but I believe he has really distinguished himself in that short time as being a very competent, capable and conscientious member of Parliament.
We have been without a softwood lumber deal for literally thousands of days. When Conservatives were in power, we got a softwood lumber deal very quickly. What does it say to Canadians that the Prime Minister is more worried about jet-setting than about saving Canadian mills and Canadian jobs?
Mr. Chair, I appreciate the hon. member's kind words. He has asked what that says to Canadians. What Canadians are seeing is failure. They want a deal to protect and save the industry, not handouts that are going to be, as I said, a band-aid on a severed artery.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, we recently put several measures in place to support the softwood lumber industry. I am thinking about the more than $1.2 billion in liquidity, in assistance programs and all the other measures we put in place to help businesses and workers affected by the tariffs.
There is our buy Canadian policy, which will give priority to our softwood lumber in our infrastructure and homebuilding projects, especially for the investments we are making in Build Canada Homes, which will require significant use of Canadian lumber.
All of these measures are set out in budget 2025. I am proud to say that I voted in favour of this budget. When I go back to my riding and I talk to stakeholders in the softwood lumber industry, I can look them in the eye and tell them that we are working on more measures, but that we have already put various measures in place to support the industry.
My colleague voted against these measures, so would he be comfortable going back to the softwood lumber industry stakeholders and telling them that he voted against the measures to support them?
[English]
Mr. Chair, the member opposite referred to handouts, which is more printed money. It only makes inflation rise, costs rise and the problems worse. It does not solve the problem.
I do agree that diversification is part of the solution, but ultimately the solution is negotiating a deal and getting rid of the 45% tariffs. Europe has 10% tariffs. Those are actual solutions that would save an industry that is dying. Handouts will not achieve that.
Therefore, no, I did not vote for a budget that will not work.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I heard the question from my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche. I am a little surprised. He asked the opposition if it was ashamed to have voted against the budget. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of his answer.
Perhaps he should tell the people of Abitibi, Saguenay and Lac-Saint-Jean who have lost their jobs that there may be a few problems going forward, given that the Prime Minister clearly told forestry workers to retrain.
[English]
Mr. Chair, if I understand the question correctly, I am happy to say that I am not ashamed of voting against a budget that does not work, and I would leave the member from the party opposite to answer that question if they feel ashamed.
However, as I said before, the budget will not work. Specifically with respect to today's topic of software lumber, continuing to borrow and print more money makes the economy worse; it does not solve the industry. We need negotiated deals so we can sell our lumber to markets in the United States, our primary customer, and elsewhere. I am proud of my decisions, and I hope the members opposite can look at the people in their ridings and make the same statement.
Mr. Chair, my colleague and I share mills on Vancouver Island that actually are integrated in their supply, whether in Crofton or Port Alberni.
This is really important. The Prime Minister is going down to Washington and talking about the auto industry, steel and aluminum. I am not saying these are not important, but we never hear about the Prime Minister's talking about forestry and the softwood lumber agreement.
Does my colleague agree with me regarding what kind of message that sends to forestry workers on Vancouver Island and throughout British Columbia and Canada?
Mr. Chair, in his message, the Prime Minister was very clear when he said, “Who cares?”
Mr. Chair, it is an honour but sad to stand up to speak on behalf of Skeena—Bulkley Valley. My riding has been affected by mill closures for the last seven years at least, and when the Prime Minister talked about the last time he spoke to President Trump about a trade deal, his response was, “Who cares?” I would ask the Prime Minister to talk to all the workers who have lost their jobs, talk to all the families that need the support of these jobs, talk to municipalities and communities, and talk to society to see if they care, because I definitely care.
In fact, I had to dust off my old speaking points from the B.C. legislature from when I was arguing the same thing. We need to save jobs, not shut down the forestry mills in B.C. What happened with the mills shutting down B.C.? We exported more raw logs overseas. We should be doing more manufacturing, but anywhere from 15 to 30 mills have shut down in B.C. alone in the last seven years. That affects families.
The student who wants to graduate from where she went to school her whole life has to think about moving and leaving her friends. Corporations can get up and leave any time they want. In fact, a lot of them move to the United States for lower taxes and fewer regulations. People cannot do that. Corporations can, and the banker Prime Minister knows this. He is the elitist banker.
The Prime Minister says that it is not a “burning issue” to talk with the President of the United States regarding trade. That is being out of touch. That is not having any sympathy or any empathy for the Canadians who rely on jobs, whether they be in mining, forestry, LNG or pipelines. Brookfield has the luxury of hiding $6 billion in a tax haven in Bermuda. A lot of us do not have that luxury. A lot of the people in B.C., especially in Skeena—Bulkley Valley, are burning through their savings. This is not right, and it is not fair for the Prime Minister to say, “Who cares?” and that there is no “burning issue”.
Why did the slogan change? The Liberals went from “elbows up” to “Who cares?” which is so insensitive, especially in Canada when we are talking about two million people now going to food banks, 700,000 of them children. This should not be happening in a first world country like Canada. We are rich in resources, but we are poor in leadership. That is sad. That is a shame. We owe the next generation better than that, and I am not even talking about the generational debt the government has incurred.
The Liberals are talking about investments. That is not investment. They are introducing new money. It is not the same as printing money, but the concept is the same: When we bring in new money without addressing the GDP, inflation goes up. This is what we are taught in high school. I am surprised the banker does not know this, but what does the Prime Minister say? When the Liberals are talking about investing $500 million of Canadian taxpayer money in a space agency in Europe whose campus, just by coincidence, is owned by Brookfield, he turns around and tells Canadians they have to sacrifice, meaning they have to sacrifice their jobs as mill workers, auto workers and steelworkers.
Canadians have to sacrifice, and by the way, they have to pay more taxes. There is a hidden tax through the industrial carbon tax and another hidden tax with the International Maritime Organization, which the government intends to vote in favour of. It does not having the courage to tell Canadians face to face about this international tax. The taxes would not go to a Canadian organization.
Canadians need help. They need jobs. They do not want handouts. I come from the Indian Act. I worked for 20 years to get our band away from Indian Act funding. Its paternalistic nature actually makes people dependent.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I will do the same thing to my colleague as I have been doing all evening. I am going to ask him a very simple question.
The proposal that is currently circulating, and what people in the forestry sector are asking the House to do, is to set up a program that would buy back 50% of the countervailing duties.
Unfortunately, when I asked the Leader of the Opposition about this tonight, he would not answer me. I hope I will be more successful with my colleague.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I think we should address the trade agreements first. The United States is our biggest trading partner.
By the way, the government fails to mention that, in 2006, Harper not only got a softwood lumber agreement in 80 days, but also recovered $4 billion in duties collected by the U.S. government. This government has failed in not addressing the softwood lumber agreement and is failing in not collecting the duties the United States is currently holding onto.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, the Forest Products Association of Canada welcomed the measures we have put in place to respond to the unjustified tariffs imposed by the U.S. administration.
In particular, representatives mentioned that procurement reforms, funding for the tariff response, workforce supports and biofuel incentives are positive measures for the future of the forestry sector.
However, the Leader of the Opposition criticized these support measures last week, which is rather surprising because, in my opinion, the Forest Products Association of Canada knows very well what the industry needs.
Will my colleague encourage his leader to reconsider his comments and to instead support measures that will give businesses the liquidity they need to continue operating during this period of economic turmoil?
[English]
Mr. Chair, better yet, I would love for these corporations to reopen the mills that they shut down in Vanderhoof, Fort St. John, Merritt, Bear Lake, Port Alberni, Fraser Lake, Surrey, Houston, Terrace, Chetwynd, Midway, Powell River and Mackenzie. Once they reopen those mills, then we will have a conversation with the corporations.
Mr. Chair, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola.
I would like to thank my learned colleague for an excellent speech. In fact, if anyone wants to know the Liberal attitude toward this, I was sitting in the House during question period, and the President of the Treasury Board laughed when we were speaking about mill closures in B.C. He essentially said that we were making it up.
Shame on him. He should be made to apologize. I wish every single Liberal here who has their head down in shame would acknowledge and denounce this, but they will not. One of them is laughing right now. What riding is he from?
It is the member for Calgary Confederation. I welcome him to the House. He has certainly made a name for himself in a short time, laughing at mill closures. Shame on him. He should apologize right here, right now.
Mr. Chair, the Liberal government has no idea what it means to lose a job, to live in poverty or to live on welfare.
The Liberal answer is that they are going to come up with a program to soften the blow, when Canadians want to actually pay their own way. They want good-paying jobs, and we had that in B.C. We had it in Canada. We had good-paying jobs.
What does the Liberal government say? Instead of elbows up, it is “Who cares?” There is no “burning issue” to talk about with the President of the United States. That is a shame.
Mr. Chair, in 2017, when Donald Trump was in his first administration, he took aim at Canada when it came to steel tariffs.
What did we do? We created a team Canada approach. We flooded Washington, across party lines. Our regional caucuses in the Pacific Northwest Economic Region were down in Spokane. We were working together. Right now, that is not happening. We are not seeing the government work across political lines to bring in a team Canada approach.
Has the member been approached and asked to go to Washington or down to the United States to start working on this for Canada?
Mr. Chair, no, I have not. In fact, I do not think the Prime Minister even asked his own Liberal government to go down to the United States.
It is not like what former prime minister Harper did in 2006. Nothing has been done, because they do not care. There is no burning issue to go down there to talk to President Trump.
Mr. Chair, I am sharing my time with the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming.
Canada and the United States have shared one of the most successful trading relationships in the world. Our economies, supply chains and workers thrive when trade flows freely under CUSMA, yet even the closest of partners encounter trade challenges. From aluminum and steel to energy and critical minerals, one issue continues to stand out: The persistent and deeply frustrating softwood lumber dispute that has resurfaced too often over the past several decades.
We are now in the fifth chapter of this dispute since the 1980s, and the cycle is familiar: The U.S. imposes unfair duties, Canada challenges them, and time and time again, independent panels agree with us. History shows that both countries benefit most when we reach a negotiated solution that restores stability and predictability for the sector.
Today, we are again deep in active litigation. Canada is vigorously defending the interests of our workers, communities and world-class producers. This round carries an even heavier burden, as our industry faces not only anti-dumping and countervailing duties but also U.S. section 232, national security tariffs on wood products.
These measures have real consequences. Softwood lumber is a cornerstone of Canada's forest sector and a vital economic anchor for many rural and northern communities. It supports thousands of well-paying jobs and contributes billions to our economy. With nearly two-thirds of our softwood lumber destined for export, and the U.S. as our largest market, unfair barriers hurt not just companies but the families and towns that rely on this industry.
Our government understands these impacts. We have stood with the sector every step of the way, providing targeted support to workers and producers and mounting a coordinated legal and diplomatic response. Canada's legal strategy is strong and united. In close partnership with provinces and industry, we are pursuing 15 active challenges to U.S. duties across multiple venues, including chapter 10 of CUSMA, chapter 19 of NAFTA , the WTO and the U.S. Court of International Trade. These mechanisms have served us well before, and we remain confident that they will again affirm Canada as a fair and principled trading partner.
We have already secured important wins. In 2019, a WTO panel found that the United States used improper methods to calculate anti-dumping duties. In 2020, another ruling overwhelmingly supported Canada's position on countervailing duties. More recent NAFTA panels have identified significant flaws in the U.S. approach and non-compliance with its own laws. Additional decisions, including under CUSMA, are expected in the months ahead. Some of these might result in refunds of duty deposits, offering real relief to Canadian producers.
Even as litigation proceeds, Canada remains committed to constructive engagement with our American counterparts. The minister is in regular contact with Secretary Lutnick to emphasize the need for a durable, mutually beneficial outcome, and the Prime Minister has raised this directly with the President.
Until a lasting agreement is reached, Canada will keep up the pressure. We will fight unfair measures through every legal and diplomatic tool; we will stand with our workers and communities, and we will continue to insist on a fair, predictable trading framework that allows our softwood lumber industry to compete and thrive. That is our government's commitment, and we will deliver it.
Mr. Chair, after 10 years of Liberal failure to secure a softwood lumber deal, the member says tonight that the Liberals have made significant wins. However, tariffs have tripled to 45%, costing Canadian producers over $10 billion. There are closed mills in communities like Houston, Vanderhoof, Port Alberni, Chemainus, Merritt and Grand Forks.
Will the member admit that Liberals look as though they do not care about forestry workers or that this is simply because they are completely incompetent when it comes to negotiating a softwood lumber agreement? Which one is it?
Mr. Chair, why has Canada not solved this yet? This dispute has existed for decades, for 40 years, under governments of different stripes. The problem persists. The U.S. system allows its industry to push for these duties, but Canada consistently wins. We win at WTO, NAFTA and CUSMA. We are pushing for the durable agreement our workers deserve.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague for her speech.
Earlier, my colleague from Jonquière asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources a question. He asked him whether he was open to the Bloc Québécois's proposal. Actually, this proposal comes from the industry and the unions, but the Bloc Québécois supports it. It consists of asking the government to buy back 50% of the countervailing duties. The parliamentary secretary told us he was open to the idea and wanted to consider it.
Can my colleague tell me whether she too is open to this proposal, which is supported by the Bloc and, again, comes from the sector, by which I mean not just the industry, but the unions and municipal officials as well? Is she open to the Bloc Québécois's proposal?
[English]
Mr. Chair, I echo the comments of the parliamentary secretary, my colleague. We are always looking to work with other members across the aisle. We are fully open to that, and the purpose of this debate is to hear all of the great suggestions. It actually makes for better policy when we work together.
Mr. Chair, my colleague from British Columbia is a strong advocate for her province and really understands the needs of the softwood lumber industry. She is a strong advocate for the workers and the businesses of this sector. I would like to hear her views on how the different measures we have put in place to help the industry have been received and what we can do to better help the softwood industry facing tariffs right now.
Mr. Chair, on the measures being put in place, for example, we heard the parliamentary secretary earlier talking about some of the delays in the banks around BDC and providing the funds needed to support the industry. We are working every step of the way with the sector and the banks to make sure the urgency is met and that workers in the industry feel supported across British Columbia and Canada.
Mr. Chair, I just want to say that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford told me that Chemainus is curtailed, not closed, so I wish to clarify the record.
However, I would like the member to clarify the record. She talked about significant wins. Has she spoken to anyone who works in softwood lumber, or is this a speech that has been given to her so she can mouth the words? For people in areas like Merritt and Grand Forks, who are seeing no work, and places like Chemainus, which has curtailments that are causing people to leave their apartments and their homes, this is a big deal. I would like an answer from her.
What significant wins, and has she spoken to anyone in the industry who actually says that this is a significant win for them?
Mr. Chair, I understand the emotion in this matter. Our Pacific caucus, which is 20 members strong and has members representing every part of the province of B.C., had a panel of experts from forestry speak to us. For us, we are working with them side by side, looking for solutions, what is working and the areas we need to improve.
Mr. Chair, I am thankful for the opportunity to rise tonight to speak in support of Canada's forestry sector.
This important sector, as we know, employs nearly 200,000 Canadians. It relies on efficient, reliable and cost-effective transportation supply chains, from trucks and railways to ports, to move its products to domestic and global markets.
The Forest Products Association of Canada reports that the last five years have, unfortunately, highlighted the fragility of Canada's freight transportation network, which has been affected by bottlenecks, accidents and frequent labour disruptions. Tonight, I would like to address the matter of the fragility of our transportation network, particularly as it relates to the forestry sector, the softwood lumber dispute and trucks transporting forest products that rely on dangerous sections of the Trans-Canada Highway in Ontario.
First, I will give a bit of contextual information. The average overland distance travelled by a forest product shipment is roughly 1,200 kilometres, with most sawmills and paper mills being in, as all my colleagues know, remote, rural and northern regions. About half of this is by rail to the United States and to seaports for offshore exports, and the other half is by truck.
When rail service falters due to congestion, crew shortages or strikes, trucking can only partially backstop the gap. It takes approximately three trucks to replace every boxcar of pulp and paper or four trucks for every centre beam of lumber and wood products. If rail service were to cease entirely, as it did briefly in 2024 due to simultaneous work stoppages at CN and CPKC, the sector would require additional trucks far beyond its trucking capacity to supply. Nonetheless, this did happen in 2024, and it highlighted the importance of trucks and our roads to bring forest products to market.
In northern Ontario, that would be along the more than 3,000 kilometres of the Trans-Canada Highway, which includes Highway 11 and Highway 17. Unfortunately, these segments of the Trans-Canada Highway are just about the only remaining sections of the highway that are two-lane highways, and so all trucks travelling from east to west, from southern Ontario to eastern Canada or western Canada as they connect from Quebec to Manitoba or from Manitoba to Quebec, must do so along dangerous two-lane highways. This creates serious national-level vulnerabilities. I will explain why, specifically for the forestry sector.
Between January and September 2025, just to give an example in my area, the North Bay to Cochrane section of the Trans-Canada in northeastern Ontario experienced the equivalent of 32 days without any movement of people or goods. If we extrapolate that to the year's end, that is 40 days when no trucks, no people and no cars could move along the highways. Basically, the MTO in Ontario is projecting that by 2030, trucks will represent almost 50% of the traffic along the roads. These are not regional numbers; these are national supply chain numbers. Basically, that is why, in Ontario, all of the municipal associations in northern Ontario are calling for widening the highways in northern Ontario in support of the forestry sector.
Although the safety and reliability of highways in Ontario falls partly under provincial jurisdiction, I nevertheless wanted to raise this issue here tonight, because it is an important factor affecting the competitiveness and resilience of our national forestry sector. Furthermore, the safety and reliability of supply chains in northern Ontario and across Canada and the softwood lumber dispute are not separate issues. I conclude that they are one and the same issue that ensures the strength of the Canadian economy.
In closing, I would like to commend our government on its work to defend forestry businesses and workers that are affected by U.S. tariffs. I am very proud to be part of a government that will always defend the interests and do what is best for Canadians and the Canadian economy.
Mr. Chair, as the opposition critic for transportation, I was quite intrigued to actually hear a Liberal talk about transportation. However, this is a take-note debate on softwood lumber, and that had only maybe a touchpoint on it. I would suggest that if the member is really serious about seeing improvements to the Trans-Canada Highway, then it is provincial, and unless it is on indigenous reserves, a Canadian Armed Forces base or a national park, it has nothing to do with the federal power.
I have a question for the member. Instead of wasting the time given to a very serious issue with a local issue of concern that she is obviously trying to put a little spotlight on for a clip at home, could she comment on the $1.25 billion this government has brought forward, which no companies that I know of or that I have heard of have accessed? Does she believe that this needs to be a priority and that the government needs to at least give the money it says it will give?
Mr. Chair, I am very happy to know my colleague is a member of the transportation committee, so he would know that since World War II, most of our Trans-Canada Highway routes have been supported by our federal government. Actually, in 2023, in Newfoundland, our government announced shared funding of the Trans-Canada Highway widening with the province. There are multiple examples. This is simply to say that this weekend I travelled 200 kilometres from my home community of North Bay to New Liskeard. I saw three major accidents with major trucks, one lumber truck, along that particular route. It is a significant problem in my section of Canada that I think is very important to bring forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, as we know, the softwood lumber crises began about 40 years ago. They ebb and flow, so much so that they have unfortunately become a kind of background noise as of late.
I would still like to share some of the things I have seen here since 2019, when I was first elected. First, I saw the renegotiation of NAFTA, when the government unfortunately did not seize the opportunity to review the dispute settlement mechanism. If it had, lawsuits would not be so drawn out and we could avoid situations like the ones we are seeing now.
Then, in 2021, I saw the Biden administration impose punitive new tariffs on our industry, and immediately afterwards, the international trade minister organized a mission to Washington, but only to discuss the other issue at hand, namely the risks that the Biden administration was posing to the automotive industry in Canada.
On the heels of those same new tariffs, I also saw that the words “softwood lumber” were not even included in the international trade minister's mandate letter a few weeks later.
I see that the Chair is asking me to wrap up—
Mr. Chair, I understand the gist of my colleague's question, and I am glad he mentioned historical amnesia. The other day, one of my colleagues used the term “historical amnesia”. It is also true that the softwood lumber dispute dates back some years.
However, I want to point out that when the dispute was resolved in 2007, American and Canadian manufacturers agreed to create a $5-million fund in Canada to be used for market development. Market development is very important. In the future, perhaps that fund could be used to help fix the infrastructure and transportation issues that I mentioned this evening.
Mr. Chair, I hold my colleague, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming, in high regard. She is a strong voice here in Ottawa for rural communities. I would like to hear from her about the work she is doing in her riding to stay informed of the needs and realities of stakeholders in the northern Ontario lumber industry, so that she can represent them well here in Ottawa.
Mr. Chair, there is one thing I did recently that I would like to mention. I went to Kapuskasing to represent the government and confirm the announcement of the funding that FedNor is providing to Kap Paper. I was able to meet with all the workers in that industry. This is certainly not an easy time, but these people and this company greatly appreciate the work being done by our government. They understand the importance of this work. I saw and heard this for myself during my visit.
Mr. Chair, I want to mention that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from North Island—Powell River.
Today, I am going to talk about my region, the Lower St. Lawrence and Chaudière‑Appalaches. It is a corner of the country filled with hard-working people, small businesses, rural roads and community pride. In short, people there just want to work and earn a decent living. The Lower St. Lawrence and Chaudière‑Appalaches are home to about 600,000 people spread out across several hundred municipalities, including 75 in my riding alone. It is a land where every job counts, a land filled with hard-working Canadians and tight-knit communities.
These regions are also supported by major employers from the forestry sector that are the lifeblood of entire municipalities. For example, Groupe Lebel has a major presence in a number of RCMs, five of which are in my riding. Maibec is a key player in wood processing. Matériaux Blanchet is heavily involved in innovation. Bégin & Bégin, Groupement forestier de Témiscouata and Groupe NBG are family businesses that support hundreds of families and are among the largest wood processing companies in Quebec.
In my riding, their plants are economic institutions. They not only support residents, they support businesses and rural communities too. Every year, we harvest 4.2 million cubic metres of timber, or nearly 15% of all the timber in Quebec. This supports more than 590 businesses in all sectors combined. I want to emphasize that I am talking about hauling companies, next-generation loggers with state-of-the-art machinery that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy and operate, businesses that sharpen the plants' blades, mechanics who maintain the plants' machinery, as well as electricians and electrical mechanics. They are all key jobs in this sector of activity that are essential to the forestry industry and form part of this major industrial and manufacturing chain.
Forestry provides close to 13,700 direct jobs in our plants, in addition to thousands of indirect jobs in trucking, maintenance, retail and services. In 2021 alone, it generated $1.3 billion in work income in my region. Now, all of that wealth is threatened by the U.S. tariffs.
For years, the industry has faced duties on Canadian softwood lumber. Currently, the U.S. is imposing a 45% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber, while European lumber is entering the U.S. with a 10% tariff. I have a simple question: How is it that European lumber pays a 10% tariff, but Canadian lumber pays 45%? We are neighbours with the Americans. We are partners. However, we are the ones being penalized the most.
During the debate tonight, I heard some of my colleagues talk about how far away Europe is from us. In Saint‑Pamphile and Saint‑Just‑de‑Bretenières, it would take us less than seven or eight hours to drive to the United States to sell our lumber there. Now, the U.S. is bringing in just as much lumber from Europe, with tariffs at 10%. Canada is completely losing its markets.
The industry is now rightly demanding the release of the $10 billion in countervailing and anti-dumping duties that the United States is holding. We are talking about $10 billion that has been tied up for 10 years. Who has been in power for 10 years? The Liberals. Meanwhile, what are we hearing in Ottawa? The Prime Minister is saying that there is no pressing need to discuss tariffs with Washington, that there are no burning issues to discuss. Where does this Prime Minister live? Certainly not here.
The money being held in U.S. coffers belongs to workers and should be reinvested in plant, equipment and wages in Canada. This is urgent. There are 13,000 jobs at stake. They say they care. When 500 businesses are at risk of going under, it is urgent. If they care so much, they need to provide support.
I am glad I made this speech. I am wondering if I still have some time left, because I have a lot more to say. One thing is certain: We cannot leave these jobs, these people and these families in limbo, as is currently the case. It makes no sense. The Liberal government has had 10 years to solve this problem, yet it still has not been able to do it. I hope the Liberals will finally give us some answers tonight so that we can solve this problem, which has been going on for far too long.
Mr. Chair, I understand that the forestry industry is very important in my colleague's riding. I want him and the families in his riding to know they have my support.
With Build Canada Homes, we made a commitment to double housing construction. We know that this will help our forestry industry because it will get all these contracts.
If 13,000 jobs are on the line in my colleague's riding, I have to wonder why he voted against budget 2025. This budget introduces Build Canada Homes, provides investments to help businesses innovate and invests in programs that will help workers. I would like my colleague to explain why he voted against that and against the 13,000 jobs at stake in his riding.
Mr. Chair, the answer is quite simple. We do not want more bureaucracy. What we want is to be able to build homes.
Currently, the number of houses being built in Canada is at its lowest level since the 1970s. What has the Liberal government built? It has not built any houses during all these years. Instead, it has built bureaucracy. That makes no sense. All these bureaucrats are not the ones building houses.
Obviously we need wood, and we have wood in Canada. We also have a market right next door in the United States. We are partners with those people. In 2006, Mr. Harper resolved this issue in just 80 days. Ten years later, it still has not been resolved. That is why I voted against the budget.
Mr. Chair, all I am hearing from one side of the House are proposals that do nothing to address the current situation. Thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands of jobs are being lost, and the Build Canada Homes program is not going to bring them back.
That said, with all due respect to my colleague who just spoke, what I took away from his speech was a description of the current situation. There are industries, there are workers, there are job losses and there are negotiations that need to be happen. However, I did not hear any proposals.
I would have liked to know whether he and his party are of the same opinion as the industry and the unions. Among other things, we talked about the possibility of maintaining connections to employment through subsidies. Is my colleague in favour of that measure? It would help companies weather the crisis and let workers know that they have support and will be able to return to their jobs afterwards.
Mr. Chair, we listen to the industry just as much as the Bloc Québécois does. The Bloc Québécois do not know everything. We listen to industry as well.
We proposed several measures to the government that it could have included in its budget to allow housing construction, such as cutting red tape. The idea is not to create new agencies for building houses. Public servants are already looking after that in Canada. The Liberals insist of adding more and more bureaucracy and red tape. Someone said earlier that it was awful.
That was announced in August, yet we have not even seen the programs or the money. Why? It is because of bureaucracy. It might take another year before we see any of the money. Implementing programs is all well and good, but people do not want programs. They want a market.
Mr. Chair, we know that this agreement was not renewed in the past 10 years.
I would like my colleague to tell me how important the forestry sector is to the prosperity of his community. How is the sector important to his riding?
Mr. Chair, forestry is critically important in my riding. It is not complicated. We are right next to the United States, to the American border.
I will give a very simple example. One of the largest manufacturers, Groupe Lebel, sources lumber from the United States, transports it to Saint‑Pamphile for processing and resells it to the United States. That means it is American lumber, not Canadian lumber. That lumber is now subject to a 45% tariff. The company buys the lumber, and it has to pay a 45% tariff when it sells it back to the United States. Does anyone think that is viable?
As my colleague from the Bloc Québécois pointed out, these 45% tariffs are unsustainable. What industry could survive financially while paying these kinds of tariffs? It is the government's responsibility to ensure that these tariffs are lifted so that we can have a viable industry in our regions.
[English]
Mr. Chair, “Who cares?” is what the Prime Minister said when asked when he had last spoken to the U.S. President about Canada's ongoing trade negotiations. The Prime Minister claimed that he had no “burning issue” to discuss with the United States at the moment and that he would speak to the President again “when it matters”.
To the over 200,000 Canadians who earn their living in forestry, who harvest our wood, mill our timber, and provide the lumber from which we build our homes, and whose blood, sweat and tears built cities like Campbell River, Powell River and Port McNeill, it matters, and it matters to their families, to their communities and to this country. More Canadians work in forestry than in the steel, aluminum and automotive sectors combined, and they are getting killed right now, especially in my home province of British Columbia.
On the coast alone, harvest volumes have collapsed to half. More than 5,400 jobs have been lost. Mills have closed and others are curtailed, and we are now harvesting only one-third of our annual allowable cut. It could be about to get even worse, because if just one more major mill closes, if just one more domino in the supply chain falls, the entire industry faces the very real possibility of total collapse, and there are two major reasons why.
The first reason is that the Prime Minister promised he would have a deal with the Americans by July 21 to remove the punitive and baseless tariffs and to provide some certainty for an industry eager to return to its feet. That did not exactly happen, did it? Instead, American tariffs on Canadian softwood, far from being removed, have tripled under the Prime Minister, and his response, beyond some flippant comments like “Who cares?”, is nothing. In fact, to add insult to injury, Canada, one of the most forested jurisdictions in the entire world, is now importing raw logs from the United States.
I will just remind Canadians of the backstory to all this. In 2006, the previous Conservative government signed a much-celebrated softwood lumber deal with the U.S. that expired in late 2015. The Liberals have had more than 10 years, under three different U.S. presidents, to renew or otherwise modify this deal. I would say they have done nothing, except the truth is that they have done worse than nothing, which brings me to the second reason this industry that built so much of our country is in crisis.
That second reason is the current government's reckless and arbitrary commitment to close up to 30% of Canada's lands to economic activity, including forestry, as part of the United Nations' 30x30 policy, a policy that risks exacerbating uncertainty around permitting delays and access to fibre, and that was suffocating the industry before the latest tariffs even came into place.
There are mass closures that have nothing to do with permitting delays and access to fibre but have everything to do with ideology and ticking the box of bureaucrats and activists in New York, and for what? It is to put our industry and our workers at a competitive disadvantage and to send our forestry jobs to Brazil, to Russia and to the United States, countries with lower environmental standards than our own. This is at a time when forestry in Canada and the 200,000 Canadian workers that it employs face an unprecedented existential crisis due to predatory trade action from the U.S.
Every day, I see the effects of all these policies in my riding: people out of work; families cutting back; lineups at the Comox Valley Airport of individuals desperate for work, seeking whatever they can at mines and energy projects hundreds or thousands of miles away; and young Canadians, be it in Campbell River or Port Hardy, whom I talk to, who see no future for forestry at all. All they see is uncertainty and a perpetual downward spiral to nothing.
However, it does not have to be this way. Canada has the best forestry workers and the best forestry companies of anywhere in the world. We have an industry that can operate sustainably for generations to come, and we have a product in softwood lumber that builds our homes and is the envy of countries right around the world.
There is no reason why the industry should not have a bright future of growth, success and prosperity, but if the government does not act to secure trade access to the U.S., to diversify our markets and to lift ideological restrictions on access to fibre, the current trend will continue, a trend of decline, of pessimism and of slowly destroying one of the foundational industries that built our incredible country.
For the sake of future generations and for Canada, I urge the Liberal government to rise to the occasion, finally do what needs to be done and deliver on what it promised.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, we launched our buy Canadian policy because we wanted to become our own best client. Through our investments in Build Canada Homes, our projects of national interest and our investments in infrastructure, we will focus on Canadian lumber. We want to build our country with our resources.
Does my colleague agree that it is important for our government to strengthen domestic demand for lumber in order to reduce exposure to tariffs imposed by the United States? Does he view stimulating the domestic market for lumber as something positive?
[English]
Mr. Chair, while it would be great to boost some domestic demand for softwood lumber, that is not the problem. This is an export industry. About 90% of Canada's softwood exports go to the United States. That cannot be replaced with domestic demand.
We can build all the homes we want, and we are all in favour of building homes here on the opposition side of the aisle, but if we do not fix the issues with access to trade markets and access to the United States, this industry will collapse. It is collapsing right before our eyes. In the process, while we are securing that access, the government should get out of the way and remove this ideological access to fibre that the 30 by 30 United Nations commitment is currently doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would like to ask my colleague why he thinks the Liberals have not reached an agreement after governing the country for 10 years.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I thank my hon. colleague for the question; that is a great question. The truth is the Prime Minister promised that he would have a deal by July 21, and he did not get one.
Instead, the Liberals have gone around poking the U.S. administration in the eye. Their solution to everything seems to be to print and hand out more money. The truth is that this industry in British Columbia, and on the coast of B.C. in my riding, is completely falling apart. Coastal mills are closing, and 5,400 people have been put out of work. If just one more of these pulp mills or sawmills closes, the domino effect could be a collapse of the entire industry.
I cannot speak for the Prime Minister on why he is incapable of delivering on his promise and getting a deal. What I do know is that this is what he campaigned on, and he is not getting it done.
Mr. Chair, I wanted to inquire about the comments around 30 by 30 and access to economic fibre. I feel that it is hard to blame 30 by 30 for a lack of fibre when, as noted, B.C.'s tenures are not being fully used. In fact, when I look at Scandinavian countries and European countries with a much smaller footprint, they tend to be quite robust in their generation of fibre. This is a very large country.
Given that, can the member expand on why he thinks 30 by 30 specifically is to blame?
Mr. Chair, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the question. I am sure he knows, in talking to forestry companies, especially in British Columbia and right across this country, that other than the trade issues with the United States, access to fibre is the number one issue that these companies face. It is the number one issue facing the industry and preventing it from going forward and being successful.
As far as 30 by 30 goes, that is just another ideological restriction. That is just another source of uncertainty that scares away investment, that scares away companies from making hiring decisions and investing in mills and that scares away what should be one of the most profitable and prosperous industries in our entire country.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his great speech on this topic. I know that his community has faced mill closures, as has mine. The Tolko mill in High Level has just reduced its mill operations by one-third. It has sent one-third of its people home. It says that it can survive this uncertainty that we are facing for a bit longer, but it is concerned about not having a structural change in this country.
What are the member's comments around that?
Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this industry on the coast of B.C. is one sawmill or pulp mill closure away from total collapse. It is barely hanging on. It is losing money at this moment. It has been struggling for a while. If we do not get a trade deal soon, if we do not get access to fibre soon, this is just the tip of the iceberg, and thousands of additional jobs are at risk.
Mr. Chair, I will be sharing my time.
I rise today with a profound sense of solidarity and optimism to speak for the tens of thousands of Canadians whose lives and livelihoods are entwined with our nation's softwood lumber sector. These men and women, from the forests to the mills to the communities they support, embody the spirit of Canadian resilience, enterprise and hope.
Canada's softwood lumber industry is a foundation for prosperity. It drives rural economies, sustains urban development and represents the best of our collective ingenuity. When the U.S. imposes duties and tariffs that harm this sector, as it has done periodically over the last four decades, it is not just about numbers on a ledger; it is families, futures and dreams that are put at risk.
As for my home province of British Columbia, we heard first-hand at the natural resources committee from Kim Haakstad of the British Columbia Council of Forest Industries. We also heard from Andy Rielly of the Independent Wood Processors Association of British Columbia. Both Kim and Andy spoke of the importance of forestry to the economy of our province. In fact, Ms. Haakstad said, “In many towns, forestry isn't just an industry; it really is the community”.
This past summer, the United States doubled existing duties and then applied an additional tariff last month. This unprecedented burden is impacting our businesses and communities. It is impacting workers and their families. It is putting Canadians' livelihoods at risk. However, in every region, Canadians have shown their strength and unity, finding ways to support one another, reimagining opportunities and never losing sight of what we can build together.
As parliamentarians we are entrusted with the responsibility to defend Canadian workers and ensure our industries have the tools and support required to thrive both in the face of challenge and in times of transition. This government has recently introduced $1.25 billion in programs and measures to help businesses and workers adapt to the impact of these unfair U.S. duties. Funding for innovation, product and market diversification, training, and retraining is aimed at creating new jobs, strengthening local economies and developing skills for the jobs of the future. Our actions are guided by a single principle: no Canadian is left behind.
We know that our workers are among the most skilled and dedicated in the world. From forestry professionals to truck drivers and from engineers to entrepreneurs, Canadians in the lumber sector contribute not just to our economy, but to our national identity. Their ingenuity and grit ensure that our forests are managed sustainably, our products meet the highest standards and our communities remain vibrant.
Indigenous communities are vital participants and leaders in the forest sector as well. Their stewardship has shaped how we view our environment and our responsibilities as caretakers of the land. This government continues to work alongside indigenous partners, including through joint ventures, resource management initiatives and employment programs, to build inclusive, thriving futures for all.
The impact of unwarranted U.S. duties and tariffs on our lumber has been felt far beyond any Canadian sawmill's gates. When a mill closes or downsizes, the effects ripple through local schools, hospitals, businesses and service providers. Every job loss touches lives in ways that cannot be measured in statistics alone. Still, Canadians persevere, standing together, supporting one another and finding new ways to move forward in unity, despite deep frustration and even anger brought on by the United States's decision to impose unjust tariffs and duties on Canadian softwood lumber and additional forest products.
This government's response to these unjustified duties and tariffs is not limited to domestic assistance. Canada is vigorously contesting and has vigorously contested the unfair U.S. duties through established mechanisms, challenging them under CUSMA and engaging in legal action in U.S. courts. We remain confident in our legal and diplomatic efforts. At every step, we are guided by our values and by the resolve of the workers and communities we represent.
The government is also working to diversify markets, encourage value-added production and promote sustainable forest practices that give Canadian products an edge around the globe. This strategy is anchored in our core values of collaboration, innovation and optimism for the future.
The Canadian spirit shines brightest through times of challenge in small towns and big cities—
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for recognizing the challenges that are facing our industry. However, the Prime Minister did say during the election campaign that he was going to get this deal done. Many Canadians from across the country voted for him because they thought that he would get this deal with Donald Trump done. Donald Trump endorsed him after all.
Why are we still living with no softwood lumber deal in this country?
Mr. Chair, the extraordinary and unjust tariffs that we are facing right now were not actually present during the election. The Prime Minister did negotiate with the United States and, in fact, 85% of our products, in general, are tariff-free. They are covered under CUSMA.
Our fundamental problem with the United States and the softwood lumber arrangement is that the United States administration believes that it does not need our lumber. As long as it thinks it does not need our lumber, it puts us in a very bad negotiating position to try to negotiate. The fact is that it is wrong. The U.S. does need our lumber. When it realizes that it does need our lumber, it will sit down with us and talk in good faith. When it is ready to sit down and talk with us in good faith, we will be more than willing and able to do so.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, there are several layers to that question. There are, of course, the assistance programs and solutions that we are proposing in the short and medium term, because there is a real emergency. I think they are clear. We have discussed them. We have not been able to get a clear answer on this.
Now, my colleague is on the government side. We also know that there will soon, very soon, within a year, be a review or even a renegotiation of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement. That is a possibility.
Is it not time to properly regulate the dispute resolution mechanism to prevent trade actions from dragging on unnecessarily and bankrupting our industries?
[English]
Mr. Chair, I certainly would love to see this resolved under the new version of CUSMA.
The fundamental problem, as I mentioned before, is that at the moment the United States administration does not believe it needs our lumber. The President said so back in September. He said, “We don't need their lumber, because we have our own forests.” The United States is wrong. It does need our lumber.
Once it starts to realize that, once that percolates into the American economy, the U.S. administration will be able to sit down with us in good faith, and we will be able to negotiate a deal that is good for Canada. We have to be in a good negotiating position in order to make a deal that is good for Canada, and the United States has to make sure the deal is good for them as well. A good business deal is good for both parties.
Mr. Chair, something my hon. colleague just mentioned has triggered a question.
One of the things this chamber needs to understand is that one of the reasons why the United States feels that it does not need Canadian software lumber right now is that lumber prices are very low by historical standards. When prices come up, that pain is going to be felt much more acutely by American consumers. Obviously, we do not want to wait for that.
Does the hon. member believe we should continue to support and provide additional supports to the forestry sector?
Mr. Chair, absolutely, we must continue to support the industry. We must continue to provide alternative directions. We must continue to build out our use of wood products domestically and to develop market diversity so that we can sell more offshore. The United States does not have to be our only external market. We can sell to the world. We have a product that is worth selling to the world, a product that the world needs and that the world wants.
Mr. Chair, right now Donald Trump is actually claiming that Canadian forest products are a national security threat to the United States. It is absolutely absurd. In fact, British Columbia and Canada are now facing higher softwood lumber tariffs at 45% than Putin's Russia. Clearly, we need a more comprehensive, high-level negotiating framework, similar to what the European Union achieved.
Would my colleague not agree that we need this leverage to resolve the softwood lumber and other long-standing issues? Why is the government not pursuing this approach?
Mr. Chair, we certainly do need to pursue other approaches, but we are still faced with the fundamental fact that the President of the United States thinks that he does not need our lumber. He is, of course, very wrong about that. We will continue to work with him and work with the administration to let them know that they do need what we have.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I was not sure it would be my turn at this point, but I am pleased to rise to speak.
Once again, we are having this take-note debate. This must be the third time we have had such a debate in the evening since I became a member of Parliament. However, I am sure there have been many more for a crisis that has been going on for 40 years. Unfortunately, this crisis is so recurrent and repetitive that it has become a bit like background noise. It is as though it no longer elicits a reaction, and the government simply shrugs its shoulders, which is unfortunate. It is extremely unfortunate, because people and families are affected. There are regions that are affected. Then there are the consumers who are affected. There are folks who will suffer as a result.
I often give talks at high schools in my riding. I often use forestry as an example. People ask me what influence the federal government has. They often feel that municipal government has more influence in their life. When the garbage truck does not show up, they call their city councillor and the problem is solved the following week. I often use the example of lumber to show that the federal government does have a role to play. Lumber tariffs seem distant, foreign and very remote, but in fact, they have repercussions here. They make lumber more expensive and unaffordable, forcing companies to lay off workers here at home. It means someone coming home before Christmas and telling his family that he no longer has a job, that he will not be able to buy them gifts and that he is going to have a hard time making ends meet at the end of the month.
This has been going on for 40 years. I have been a member of Parliament since 2019, and I have seen a lot of missed opportunities in my time. I remember our first debates on renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. We examined the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, or CUSMA, which was meant to replace NAFTA. The dispute settlement mechanism issue was left unresolved. The Americans know they are going to lose the legal proceedings. They know it full well. They know they are going to fail. They are playing the long game. Their strategy is to force us into bankruptcy, to block us by slowing our competitiveness and preventing us from modernizing as we should while they make gains on their side. They are biding their time. That is why we need cut-off dates for legal proceedings under CUSMA.
The Trump administration brought back the tariffs, but I remember a take-note debate we had back when the Biden administration increased them in 2021. Several colleagues were there at the time; some are still here. We wore masks back then, but it was the same colleagues. Despite these new tariffs, there was no mention of the issue in the Minister of International Trade's mandate letter, published a few weeks later. That just shows how lightly the issue was taken.
We saw the minister rush off to Washington to talk exclusively about the auto industry because there was a plan by the Biden administration that would harm our domestic industry. Softwood lumber was not on the agenda. When other tariffs were announced later, I remember being invited to the World Trade Organization summit. I did not go, but I was invited by the international trade minister. Softwood lumber was not on the list of topics she wanted to discuss either.
The result, as we can see today, is that we have assistance programs that are woefully inadequate. This is part of a general philosophy of complete indifference, as evidenced by the constant delays.
I remember asking the Minister of Industry some questions a few weeks ago in the House. She told me that she knew that the forestry industry was important in my riding. There is no forestry industry in my riding. My riding is an hour away from hers. There is no forestry industry in Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton. It is an hour away from hers. I asked those questions in my capacity as my party's trade critic.
I am being told that my time is up. There are so many other things I wanted to talk about this evening, but there are still questions and comments.
At some point, the government has to recognize the problem and take it seriously. That is what matters.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I want to thank the member for his great speech on this topic. I wonder if he has any comments on the fact that we are only holding the Prime Minister to his own words. He promised that he was a master negotiator and that he was going to get us a software lumber deal within 100 days, by July 1, or something like that.
I would also point out that the Liberals have been in power for a decade while the U.S. has been under three different presidents. I remember the Justin Trudeau bromance with Obama. I thought they would fix the softwood lumber deal because they got along so great. The Liberals had lots of accolades for Joe Biden, who came to visit us right here. They never got the softwood lumber deal. I just wonder what the member has to say about that.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I get the impression that this has not been a top priority. I have given several examples of missed opportunities, of times when this should have been at the forefront and at the top of the list. However, the industry has always been ignored, even though it is an extremely important industry, one that is also important to the Americans.
During a mission to Washington, I met with representatives of the National Association of Home Builders. They are radically opposed to what is going on and are wondering whether the folks in charge are crazy. At a time when there is a housing crisis and millions of Americans are struggling to find housing, construction costs are going up. Home ownership is extremely difficult, access to housing is just as difficult and, suddenly, we find out that this is happening.
Alliances could have been built, but the government's approach has clearly failed so far. It was supposed to resolve the issue in a matter of weeks or months at the most, but the situation remains unchanged as of today.
Mr. Chair, I would like to put a question to my colleague, who has a great deal of experience in the House and has been through these recent crises.
What does he suggest as a long-term solution to this crisis?
Mr. Chair, as I have said and my colleagues have repeated several times, the short- or medium-term solution is immediate assistance.
As I said earlier, the long-term solution would be to resolve this issue within the framework of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which will be reviewed no later than next year. There needs to be a mechanism in place in case of trade actions, because no one can guarantee that the bad faith shown by an administration will suddenly disappear. Future administrations will still be able to behave the same way, which is why we need to set a real time limit, as we were meant to do from the beginning.
The notion of imposing a time limit on the dispute settlement mechanism between states was raised from the outset. The maximum period discussed was one year. In the end, that changed. It was supposed to be one year, but that excluded the time needed to appoint arbitrators. That is where the Americans found ways to stall and draw things out. This aspect will have to be addressed head-on in the next review.
[English]
Mr. Chair, in my home province of British Columbia, we are asking the government to treat forestry like the other sectors, such as the auto sector and the steel and aluminum sector, when it comes to relief, but right now that is not happening. There is a $1.2-billion bailout that is as slow as molasses rolling out the door. There is $50 million allotted for workers, and there are 200,000 workers in this sector.
I would like to hear from my colleague how the Quebeckers who rely on forestry jobs and the communities that rely on forestry feel the forestry sector is being treated compared to the other sectors that are being hit and hammered by Donald Trump's tariffs.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, that is an excellent question, and I do not understand why lumber is not regarded more as a major industry and considered a major material.
For years now, government reports have indicated that we could radically increase the amount of wood used in construction as an alternative to concrete, because it is more environmentally friendly and emits far less greenhouse gas. It is an industry that will create more cooling islands in cities. In short, it contributes in every way to decarbonization for the future.
Indeed, this industry has not always been above reproach. We remember Richard Desjardins' film—
I will have to stop the hon. member there, as we have to resume debate.
The hon. member for Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I am sharing my time with my colleague for Miramichi—Grand Lake.
I rise today to address an issue of profound urgency, an issue that strikes at the heart of countless communities across B.C., our nation and my riding: the crisis facing Canada's forestry sector.
For more than a decade, this vital industry has been neglected by the government. Now, we find our ourselves on the brink of disaster. The recent decision by the United States to impose a 45% tariff on our softwood lumber exports is a direct threat to the livelihoods and stability of small towns that have relied on forestry for generations.
It is important for every member of the House to fully grasp the consequences of this crisis. We cannot sit by and do nothing. Many of the negotiations that have occurred concerning tariffs between the U.S. and Canada have barely mentioned softwood lumber. Forestry is a backbone for so many rural communities. I have been touring my riding, from Princeton to Grand Forks to Castlegar. Our forestry businesses are suffering, and our people are suffering.
In many small towns, the local mill can be the largest employer, and generations of families have relied on these well-paying stable jobs to build a future, raise their children and contribute to the local economy. When a mill shuts down or scales back its operations, the impact ripples through every corner of the community. It is hard for those who live in an urban area to understand that retraining is not an option for most when a mill shuts down and jobs are lost in a rural town. What is the only option for many is leaving that town.
Two mills in my riding have closed completely in the past decade, but others have and are scaling back tremendously as we speak. In Grand Forks, which had a recent mill shut down and then another just in the last couple of weeks go to one shift, it has left families scrambling. I met a young couple who had moved to the town just a few years ago. They bought a home, put down roots and felt hopeful about a fresh start in a community they were proud to join. The husband got laid off with the recent closure, and now they are facing the harsh reality that without work they might not be able to pay their mortgage and keep their home. They told me they were agonizing over whether to uproot their family and their children once again, this time heading north in a desperate hope of finding new employment, or staying to see if the tariffs may be lifted and the jobs might come back again.
These losses extend far beyond mill workers and contractors. When a mill shuts down, it affects the entire local economy. The grocery store feels it, as do the hardware store, the restaurants, the cafes, the gas stations and volunteer organizations. Schools lose families. A mill closure is not just a business shutting down; it is a slow hollowing out of an entire town. Our forestry communities need a federal government that will stand up for them and champion the value of Canadian wood products. The people I met are not asking for handouts; they want their jobs back. They want to work.
The current situation demands urgent action, not a Prime Minister who says, “Who cares?” If we fail to act now, more communities will face the same devastation; more families will be forced to leave towns they love, and more businesses will close their doors. We do not need ghost towns. I stand here today because people affected by this crisis deserve to have their voices heard in this chamber. They deserve leadership and meaningful solutions. We owe them nothing less.
Mr. Chair, I hear the hon. member asking for action. The government is taking action. Is it perfect? Maybe it is not perfect. We are listening to the industry, but I did not hear the member suggest any solution to what we agree is a very difficult situation. If they do not want a handout and they want a deal, I would like to know what concessions they are prepared to give to the Americans to get a deal.
Mr. Chair, it is difficult to talk about any type of concession or deal when the government is not even in negotiations with the Americans. How many times have I heard that the Liberals have gone across the border, which is very few and not enough, to talk with the Americans and Trump but not even mention softwood lumber?
These people are in a desperate situation. They do not deserve to be ignored. Our towns are in a desperate situation as well.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, during the budget debates, we talked a lot about government spending that made no sense, along with an $80-billion deficit. For one thing, this government extended tax credits for the oil industry until 2040. These tax credits for the oil industry are collectively going to cost us $100 billion. In the meantime, the struggling forestry sector is getting not one penny. That is why we are here this evening.
Does my colleague agree with me that it makes no sense to give $100 billion in tax credits to the oil industry and absolutely nothing to the forestry industry?
[English]
Mr. Chair, I have travelled through B.C. to many pulp mills and sawmills and have spoken to owners and CEOs about the situation they are in. They told me that they do not need a bailout in the form of more loans. They do not need further debt. They have been getting deeper and deeper into debt for the past decade because of the inactions of the government in helping this sector.
They would like to see negotiations. They want to put people to work. They do not want one shift; they want three shifts going 24 hours a day, as they have had in the past.
Mr. Chair, this is classic Liberals. They stumble along until we are in the midst of a crisis and then say, “What would you guys do?” It is pretty obvious: We would be negotiating a softwood lumber deal.
The Liberals had lots of opportunities to do so. I remember the bromance between Justin Trudeau and Obama. They could have made it a priority and had a softwood lumber deal then. I remember when Joe Biden came to visit and the Liberals were swooning all over him. They could have used that opportunity to get a softwood lumber deal.
What does my hon. colleague think about the missed opportunities the government has had to sign a softwood lumber deal?
Mr. Chair, it is a very difficult question. What I would like to know right now is who in the government is in the United States tonight negotiating for the people who cannot put food on their table, are waiting in lines at the food bank and do not want a handout. They want their jobs.
Who is there right now? Who is there tonight? Who will be there tomorrow? I want every single Liberal sitting here tonight to go there as a group, with representatives from all parties, and get a deal for the people of Canada.
Mr. Chair, tonight's debate is not academic. It is not in theory, and it is not a matter of charts and tables on some Ottawa desk. Tonight's debate is about workers and small towns. It is about the people who built this country with their hands and who are watching their livelihoods get crushed because the government cannot get a deal.
In my riding, in Miramichi, we do not need a briefing note to understand what is happening. We are living it. Earlier this year, because of the Prime Minister's failure, Arbec Forest Products announced a shutdown of its Miramichi mill, where 29 jobs were permanently eliminated and 113 workers were directly affected. That is 113 families and 113 paycheques. That is just one mill in one community in one corner of Canada.
This is not just a Miramichi story. The pain from the government's failures runs across New Brunswick. In the northwest, in places like Perth-Andover, Nackawic and Woodstock, mills are fighting the same headwinds, the same duties and the same impossible math. If we were to talk to the contractors in Carleton County, the haulers on those back roads and the families whose livelihoods depend on the steady market, they would tell us that they are feeling the squeeze just as hard.
When one part of New Brunswick's forestry economy gets hit hard, the pain runs through the whole province. Our province does not have Bay Street hedge funds to fall back on. We have mills, truckers, woodlot owners and communities tied together by work and by timber. When federal leadership collapses, it is not Ottawa that pays the price. It is the people in every corner of New Brunswick who depend on forestry to keep their towns alive.
Across this country, the story is the same. It is a failure of the Prime Minister who promised elbows up. Because of the government's failure, we have seen more than 25,000 direct jobs vanish. It is nearly 90,000 total jobs when we count the ripple effects and the truckers, the mechanics and the suppliers. Every one of these losses sits on the conscience of a government that has gone 10 years without securing a softwood lumber agreement. It has been 10 years, three American presidents and not one deal.
However, who did get a deal? It was Stephen Harper in just 80 days. It was not 80 years, but 80 days. The government has not even managed a deal in 3,650 days. The result is softwood lumber duties of 35%, with some producers facing more than 47%. Then, in October, as if that was not enough, President Trump slapped another 10% section 232 tariff on lumber and a 25% tariff on wood furniture and cabinets, which is set to rise as high as 50% next year. Combined, many Canadian producers now face over 45% in duties and tariffs. Almost half of their product's value is gone before it crosses the border.
The U.S. Treasury has taken over $10 billion from Canadian forestry companies since 2017, which is money that should have stayed in rural towns, in mill upgrades, in workers' paycheques and in the real economy of this country. Instead, it is sitting in Washington in Donald Trump's pockets thanks to the failed banker turned failed Prime Minister.
Unifor has said, “Forestry is in an absolute crisis...we're at a breaking point”. COFI has begged the government to show the same urgency for lumber that it shows for steel, aluminum and energy, and what did the government offer? It offered a $1.25-billion support package, which was announced in August. Not one dollar of it has delivered, and not one loan guarantee has been approved. There has not been one worker support rollout, not one timeline set and not one piece of diversification funding allocated. What that is called here at home is nothing.
This is what the government has done; that is what it has delivered. Meanwhile, mills are closing and families are scrambling. Young people are leaving small towns because the work is drying up. This is not just a policy failure; it is a national failure of leadership.
However, the Prime Minister does not seem too worried. He has been in 18 countries in eight months, but how many sawmills has he been to? He has walked plenty of red carpets, but not one log yard. He has shaken hands with foreign dignitaries, but not with one logger who just lost his job because Ottawa could not get a deal.
Small towns like mine, places like Miramichi, Blackville, Doaktown, Rogersville, Chipman and Minto do not want a charity. They do not want photo ops or another press release. They want their jobs. They want a country that fights for them the way they have fought for Canada. What they see is a government that surrendered our leverage, our industry and our workers, and they see a government that insulted them with election slogans of elbows up.
Conservatives reject that, and we know what forestry means. We know what it means to the men and women who put their boots on at 5 a.m. and work hard to build a nation. We are here tonight to say this crisis is real, the pain is real and this debate matters. We will not stop until Canada has the government willing to negotiate fair softwood lumber agreements and is willing to stand up to the United States.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, the forestry industry is central to the economy of the province of New Brunswick, and the U.S. administration's unjustified tariffs are having a significant impact on the sector.
I heard my colleague voice several criticisms about our approach, but I did not hear many concrete suggestions on how we can actually help this very important sector.
On our side, we have implemented measures: $1.2 billion to access liquidity and a buy Canadian policy to stimulate domestic demand. We are working to reach a really good agreement with the United States. We do not want to sign just any agreement. We want a good agreement that will meet the needs of Canadians. These are several concrete measures that my colleague has opposed.
Instead of criticizing, could he suggest constructive solutions on how we can support this sector, which is so important to New Brunswick?
[English]
Mr. Chair, there are two points that I thought of when the member asked his question. One of them was about what we do. We are not the government; we are in opposition. The Liberals are the ones who stood up and said they had their elbows up and that they were going to have a trade deal by July 21. They got absolutely nothing. The mill workers in New Brunswick, along with the rest of them in Canada, do not want a handout. They want their jobs. They want to get up in the morning, pack a lunch, go to work and bring their paycheques home to support their families. They do not want the government to support their families for them.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, earlier this evening, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, I said that tonight we cannot settle for mere slogans. Saying “elbows up”, “who cares” or “we care” four times is not good enough for people in the forestry sector.
A proposal is on the table. Unfortunately, no one in the Conservative Party has been able to tell us whether they support it or are not interested. No one will answer us.
I will rephrase the proposal for my colleague. People in the forestry sector are asking the government to absorb 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. That would save jobs.
Does my colleague agree with that?
[English]
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order.
My colleague says that he did not understand the question, so there is clearly an interpretation issue. If we intend to abide by the Official Languages Act, I suggest that my colleague rephrase his question so that my colleague can hear it properly.
From what I understood, the member was saying that he did not understand all of the interpretation. He is not saying that he did not understand the question. I will let the member decide for himself whether he understood what was asked, yes or no.
[English]
The interpretation was not right. Is that what the member was saying?
[Translation]
I would ask the member for Jonquière to briefly repeat his question.
Mr. Chair, we are not content with empty slogans like “elbows up” and “who cares”. We need proposals.
There is a proposal on the table. Unfortunately, my Conservative colleagues have not taken a position on it. This proposal calls for the government to buy back 50% of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month.
Does my colleague agree?
[English]
Mr. Chair, we have not seen any proposal. We want to see the government negotiate with the U.S. to get a trade deal that is fair for Canada.
Mr. Chair, when asked if he was picking up the phone and talking to Donald Trump, the Prime Minister said, “who cares?” We care. We care deeply about the workers in the softwood lumber industry. There are 15 mills that operate in my constituency. My friend Peter works at one of those mills. These are the folks who are affected by this. The Liberals have had 10 years to fix this problem, and now today they are saying we need to diversify our markets. They have had 10 years to diversify our markets. Stephen Harper signed 42 free trade agreements around the world, and the Liberals could have worked to ensure that we had diversified markets for our softwood lumber. What does the member think about that?
Mr. Chair, I agree with my colleague. When I look at Miramichi—Grand Lake, I look at the Doaktown mill. Doaktown has 800 people in the community. They have 165 jobs. We look at Chipman. There are 1,200 people in the community and 250 at the mill. That cripples those areas. When those jobs go, that is the end of those communities. Those people are moving out west. They are moving to different parts of the country or across the province.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, it is getting late and I would like to apologize.
[English]
I want to start by thanking many colleagues who have been in the take-note debate tonight. I am only participating virtually because I am simultaneously in the committee doing clause-by-clause on Bill C-12. Timing is tricky, and I know that I have only five minutes. I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.
Many of the speeches tonight have been extremely powerful. I have been trying to observe them all, as we can imagine, back and forth between Zoom rooms while defending amendments to protect refugee rights. I want to say from the outset that the forest products industry is terribly important to Canada, and that, as a British Columbian, I grieve for every mill town that has lost its mill, for workers who have no wood to process.
As some members have mentioned already, the hon. member for Jonquière, for example, the forest industry is facing a perfect storm, and it is imperfect in its impact on the communities.
It is horrific. A lot of the impacts have been climate change-related, with insect infestations, the pine beetle outbreak in B.C. and wildfires, which have contributed to a hard time for supply and a hard time for forest workers.
I have been working on forest policy issues for a long time. I wrote my first book on Canada's forest policies in 1998 and the second in 2005. Through all of it, one persistent irritant has been the U.S.'s constant raising of objections to the structuring of our forest industry, unfair objections that claim we are subsidizing our forest industry. What I would like to suggest in my time tonight is that, as the U.S. is once again doing this, we need to think outside the box. We have been trying, for decades, to fix the softwood lumber disputes with the United States. Let us think about protecting our industry through new approaches to economic sovereignty.
Again, referencing the hon. member for Jonquière, I think it was a solid idea to think about paying some of the duties so that we protect the industry. I would also like to suggest that it has been more than decades, centuries, since we have thought of ourselves as hewers of wood and drawers of water, having a rip-and-ship mentality to how we handle our natural resources. What if we said no more to allowing a pellet industry to start selling pellets to Japan and the U.K. out of good, solid logs, as proven in research by Ben Parfitt from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives? What if we said no more to this fake carbon credit to the U.K. in taking Canadian logs and turning them into pellets to ship them overseas? No raw logs should leave this province or the country without being processed first.
I also want to suggest, in the time that I have, that it is time Canada created a strategic reserve of Canadian softwood lumber that the government buys. At this point, it is not as much as it used to be. There is $11 billion to $15 billion a year of Canadian softwood that ends up in the U.S. We could keep it here, process it here and use it to build Canadian homes. We could have structural lumber that creates greener building materials. We could continue to hold our softwood lumber here, use it here and process it here. Even one raw log exported is one raw log too many.
We could engage indigenous nations to work with us to ensure the sustainable management and the logging of our old growth and do more to ensure that every log harvested in Canada is processed in Canada. We could get those logs to sawmills and use them in Canada where we need them. Let Trump apply tariffs if he wants to, but we will not be shipping them any forest products anymore until they stop their practices that are prejudicial, illegal and unfair to Canadian forest-based communities.
I would urge the House to listen to all those strong voices and also thank every member in this place who spoke of the pain and suffering that forest communities are experiencing as mills close and tariffs increase. This is an urgent priority, just as important as aluminum and steel, and every member of the current government needs to recognize that.
Mr. Chair, my colleague touched on something we have not discussed enough so far tonight: the effects of climate change on the forestry sector. She is absolutely right; it is creating challenges in terms of the spruce budworm and the pine beetle, and of course it is making forest fires larger in areas quite far away from where we have ever managed woods, because there are drier and hotter conditions causing them.
I am wondering if my colleague can expand on those thoughts, because I think they are vitally important to the conversation. Climate Change is the defining issue coming at us, and while we deal with a number of crises, we cannot lose focus on the big crisis that is slow-rolling and in front of us.
Mr. Chair, what we experienced in British Columbia, and a lot of people in the rest of Canada may not know it, was the first really large economic impact from the climate crisis, which was the pine beetle outbreak that killed an area of lodgepole pine forest in the interior of B.C. equivalent to two times the size of Sweden. It happened because we lost the cold snaps in winter, when it used to hit -35°C, which was what limited the pine beetle spread.
Warming contributed to the dead forest that contributed to the fires, which contributed to economic losses and trauma for everyone concerned. They are connected issues, but as Trump increases his tariffs, we have to protect the communities that have already been through so very much with mill closures and damage from the climate crisis.
Mr. Chair, when we are talking about big issues at a national level that are affecting literally thousands upon thousands of people, and when we are talking about macroeconomics and international trade deals, what can often get lost and overlooked is the localized picture and the individual.
This is near and dear to my heart, and the forestry sector is near and dear to my heart on a personal level, because I was raised in a forestry worker's home. My dad worked in a pulp mill for over 50 years, prior to retiring at the age of 69. He worked as late as 69 years old because the mill went down in the community where I grew up, Nackawic, when my dad was 51 years old. As a result of that, the devastating effects he went through, such as loss of pension and other challenges, had an impact not just on him but on the whole community.
I hope that the House keeps in mind the personal devastation that forestry workers are experiencing right now. I wonder if the hon. member would comment on that.
Mr. Chair, I have gone through times in my life when a good salary, or any salary, could not be counted on. Sometimes I was between jobs, facing unemployment insurance, and struggling. However, as parliamentarians, we do not worry, right? We are going to get our paycheque no matter what. However, we have to earn it, and the way we earn it is to never to forget that we represent individual Canadians, and that the personal is political.
We fail when people think that the mill's closing in someone's town does not affect us, or when it does not make us so angry we could scream every time we know that raw logs are being shipped out, when mills would love to run more shifts and hire more workers but cannot get the logs. We have to let communities know that we care; that, at least, is some consolation.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I must be the only member of this House who, just before being elected, worked on paper machines. I think I know the forestry industry well. I know what it is like to work 12-hour shifts during the day, at night or on weekends on paper machines. There is no one in this House who can say they know that better than I do.
My colleague, whom I really like, is fighting to protect the environment. I would like to know how she feels when she sees the current government putting billions of dollars into subsidies for the oil and gas industry and not a damn penny for the forestry industry, even though it is the industry that is best positioned to combat greenhouse gases.
Mr. Chair, my colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Jean is absolutely right.
The fossil fuel industry and other industries are getting significant subsidies, but nothing is being done to address the concerns of the forestry sector. Why? This is unacceptable—
[English]
Mr. Chair, before I get started, I just want to respond to a comment by my colleague from New Brunswick, who talked about the impact on forestry workers and communities. He talked about his family connection to the forestry sector. I also have a family connection. My great-grandfather and my great-grandmother lived in Ocean Falls, where my great-grandfather was a papermaker. My grandmother and my late grandfather also were there, and my mom was there. When Ocean Falls went from a thriving community of 3,500 people to the 70 people it is today, as it collapsed, we saw intergenerational families disperse, and we saw the impact that had, not just on community but on families, and the cost of that. We have to do everything we can to ensure that it does not happen in communities like Port Alberni and the community where my colleague lives, and we need to work collectively.
Today I am honoured to bring the voices of workers, of people in the forestry sector, communities and first nations in the riding of Courtenay—Alberni, who are here lobbying for the federal government to take this issue seriously. We know the softwood lumber industry is a $23.3-billion industry that generates around 200,000 direct jobs, but it also is responsible for 182,000 indirect jobs for Canadian workers and supports livelihoods in over 300 communities across this country.
We need to take an “all hands on deck” approach. We need to rethink how we are looking at the forestry sector. As my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands said, it is an opportunity also for us to start maximizing the use of our fibre. As we tackle the housing crisis, we can use mass timber and modular construction supported by Canadian softwood lumber, which also can help cut build times in half for affordable housing and reduce emissions associated with homebuilding by up to 60%, but we need to treat this like an emergency, as we did during the COVID pandemic. The government is not moving at that pace.
In addition, obviously we need to retool, but supporting biomass utilization and including it as a source of clean energy also makes both economic and environmental sense. It supports billions of dollars in economic activity while comprising only one part of an all-out, necessary, hands-on-deck approach to reducing the prevalence and spread of wildfires.
With respect to this take-note debate, as we know, it is critical timing, because the softwood lumber industry is in crisis. Since 2017, tariffs have drained nearly $10 million from Canada's forestry sector, and the B.C. softwood lumber industry is facing tariffs of up to 45%. Trump's tariffs on softwood lumber are higher than those currently in place on Vladimir Putin's Russia.
It is not just tariffs; softwood lumber is also on the front lines of the climate crisis. Wildfire damage has cost Canadians over $1 billion annually, and this figure will only increase over time. Without urgent action, the massive emissions wildfires produce will trap us in a devastating cycle of environmental and economic degradation.
In August, the Prime Minister announced $1.2 billion in new funding to support the forestry sector, which is far less than for the other sectors. Worse, that money has not gone out to producers. They have not been able to access the promised relief, and they are still waiting for that money to come through. Further to that, only $50 million of that money, 4%, is earmarked for worker supports. I have said it before in the House, and I will say it again: That is not a plan; that is an insult. What is worse is that many owner-operators and contractors remain excluded from those worker supports, despite how crucial the softwood lumber industry is to our economy.
The Prime Minister continues to be in the U.S. talking about other sectors and not talking about forestry. Right now, we can look at the news, and the headline is about bailing out the steel industry. Well, I can assure members that it will not be the same as what he is offering the forestry sector. We know that, and we are going to continue to act in support of productive ideas, but we are also going to be propositional, as we were with the biomass tax credit, which will hopefully generate and unlock around $6 billion in investment.
We all also need to make sure that team Canada and the U.S. are working collectively, together with major strategic interests, as we have with energy, critical minerals and continental supply chains, hydroelectric energy, softwood lumber and Arctic co-operation. We need a more comprehensive, high-level negotiating framework, similar to what the EU has achieved, which could provide the leverage needed to resolve softwood and other long-standing issues. We need a team Canada approach. We need the government to act with urgency.
Mr. Chair, I want to extend a special thanks to my colleague because of his work on the biomass ITC, which he was instrumental in helping bring forward.
I want to offer a comment that I hope the member will respond to on the trade negotiations with the United States and the psychology of the U.S. President, about which I will be modest in my comments. He is a deal maker, and he does come from a deals-beget-deals environment. Given his interest in some of the other sectors, I wonder if my colleague would respond to the notion that perhaps by starting with the things that Donald Trump is most interested in discussing, we could build momentum toward a softwood lumber deal.
Before I hand it over, I want to say that we will fight every day for the forestry sector.
Mr. Chair, we have seen the Liberals retaliate. We have seen them come back and fight back, but they are not leveraging when it comes to the forest sector and softwood lumber. Maybe the U.S. will target steel or go after auto and we will see the government fight back, but we are not seeing the same attitude when it comes to the softwood lumber industry.
This dispute has been going on since 2017. It has been way too long. We do not hear the Prime Minister talk about it. How often have we heard him talk about softwood lumber when he comes back from Washington? I can say it is not once. He has not stood in Washington even once and said this is a top priority in his negotiations.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his very good remarks; they were very thoughtful.
It is absolutely important that there is urgency to getting this resolved. What is evident so far is there has been no urgency from the government on softwood lumber. It has been 10 years. Former prime minister Stephen Harper got to a deal in 80 days. We are causing the death of the forestry sector by delay. There is delay in dealing with what needs to be dealt with.
It is time to get back to the table, think big picture and get the best deal possible for Canada's forestry workers. We need urgency from that side of the House. I hope the member will join me in demanding that the government take action for our forestry workers.
Mr. Chair, the federal government has created a federal industry national working group when it comes to steel and aluminum, but it still has not done that for forestry. It does not have a round table that includes workers and forest producers. That is completely ridiculous at this point in the game.
We are asking for the federal government to create a softwood working group, a table that has the mandate to fast-track solutions on duties, liquidity and Canada's negotiating posture so we can finally get a secure, fair and durable softwood lumber agreement. Why is it taking so long for the government to bring this working group together?
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, my colleague is always an ally when it comes to the forestry sector. We have seen many initiatives here before, including a bill on the use of wood. Unfortunately, even though this bill was passed, it has no teeth since it is not binding. The government is being advised to use wood as though it has never been advised to use it before. I find that a little odd.
Does my colleague agree that the government should have a measure in place that allows carbon footprints to be considered in its calls for tenders? That way, wood would qualify every time. It would be a binding measure to promote the use of wood and would give the forestry sector a helping hand, at least in the government's tendering process.
[English]
Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleague. He has been an incredible champion for the forest products sector in Quebec. I work with him on the all-party forestry caucus on this very important issue. It has been a real pleasure.
In terms of what we need to do and look at, we need to take an all-out approach. That could mean mass timber, ensuring that when we build houses in this country, we use Canadian-made wood. There is the biomass tax credit, using every opportunity to create value out of our fibre.
What this really comes down to is that we need a negotiated settlement. That is what we are all talking about. It needs to be all hands on deck, and this sector needs to be prioritized, like every other sector that has been hit with Donald Trump's tariffs. That is not the case right now.
It being 11:14 p.m., pursuant to order made on Friday, November 21, the committee will rise.
(Government Business No. 2 reported)
[Translation]
Publication Explorer
Publication Explorer