“This budget still gives billions of dollars in subsidies to rich oil companies. These companies make huge profits while Canadians pay high gas prices. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree that the government should keep giving them this money?”

“Mr. Speaker, I know that the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the scale of the deficit and the waste of public funds. However, a closer look at this budget shows that the government is continuing to hand out billions of dollars in subsidies, particularly for carbon capture projects undertaken by billionaire oil companies. While these companies continue to generate substantial profits, Canadians are paying nearly $2 a litre at the pump. Does the Leader of the Opposition agree that the government should continue providing billions of dollars in subsidies to oil companies?”

“I am voting against this budget, and I want to change the amendment. This budget hurts Quebec. It cuts health funding by billions of dollars instead of giving the provinces the help they asked for. It still owes Quebec almost $690 million for the cost of asylum seekers. It gives hundreds of millions of dollars to oil companies while giving nothing new for clean electricity over the next two years. It also hides a $60 billion deficit through dishonest accounting, while wasting money on national celebrations.”

“Mr. Speaker, last year, the Minister of Finance, whom I would like to acknowledge, chose the title for his budget, and I guess he realized after tabling it that there was a translation error in the title of the French version. He had taken the English version and plugged it into Google Translate to translate the title. This year, the Liberals decided to ransack the history of the Quebec nation to find a new title for their budget, and they realized that there was no good English translation for “Maîtres chez nous”. I will be delighted to talk about that. Earlier, I listened to the speech given by the minister, who certainly did not listen to the Government of Quebec. He told us that his party represents Quebeckers because there are 44 Liberal members from Quebec. This is their cue to applaud. I will wait. Some hon. members: Hear, hear! Jean‑Denis Garon: I congratulate them, Mr. Speaker. Do you know why? The Minister of Finance loves the history of the Quebec nation. In 1982, there were 74 Liberal members representing Quebec. They stood up and betrayed Quebec by voting for the Constitution put forward by Jean Chrétien, who is here on the Hill today. That is Liberal history. That is Liberal betrayal. What are Quebeckers and the Government of Quebec seeing today? They are seeing that Quebec is the province that has been hit the hardest by tariffs, with 0% economic growth, rising inflation and rising interest rates. What are Quebeckers saying? They are saying that the government needs to focus on Quebeckers’ priorities and fund the health care system properly. They feel so strongly about it that Quebec’s democratically elected government called for health transfers to be increased. When Quebeckers read this budget, they will understand that what the federal government is saying is that, as of next year, its refusal to increase transfers will cost Quebec’s government, sick people and patients between $2.5 billion and $3 billion, even though Quebec was asking for the opposite. Quebeckers know that the federal government owes Quebec $689.9 million for asylum seekers, and we know that the federal government is fully aware of this because it has already paid a very small portion of the bill. That money belongs to Quebeckers. That money was requested by Quebec’s democratically elected government. It was not just the Government of Quebec that requested it. The National Assembly of Quebec spoke unanimously. Quebeckers will realize that the members on the other side of the House are great at applauding on cue, but not so great at supporting motions unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly. The same goes for the $814 million for the phony carbon tax rebates. Quebeckers want the government to stop using Quebeckers’ money to pay oil companies. That industry is not facing any tariffs. It is the Americans’ favourite Canadian industry. Investors in the oil and gas industry are American, and the dividends from these Canadian oil companies go to the United States. Quebeckers wonder why the federal government is underfunding Quebec’s health care system while sending their tax dollars to oil companies. That is what Quebeckers are thinking, regardless of how many Liberal members from Quebec there are here in the House. Quebec’s finance minister recently made some remarks. He is taking over the reins of public finances, and he said that the federal government’s mega deduction will create a shortfall of more than $1 billion in Quebec’s public finances, affecting its ability to fund services, and that it is a headache. Quebeckers know that they should listen to the Government of Quebec. They do not want the federal government to make this deduction a “giga” deduction and to rob Quebec of another $1 billion for the next fiscal year and beyond. I am not talking about the quality of the deduction. I am not talking about whether or not it is appropriate to have accelerated depreciation. What I am saying is that, today, as I speak, Quebec’s finance minister is finding out that, for the next fiscal year and beyond, he will have to cut $1 billion somewhere in Quebec, raise taxes or put future generations in debt because of these 44 members, who clap when they are congratulated for existing. That is exactly what we are seeing today. The phrase “masters of our destiny” really does have a certain appeal. It is important to be the master of our own destiny. They like being masters of their own destiny. I understand why. In Quebec, we figured that out back in the 1960s. However, being masters of our destiny means not bowing down to President Trump when it comes to the digital levies. There are American companies in Silicon Valley that do business in Canada and do not pay their fair share of taxes. Being masters of our destiny means the first thing we should want is a level playing field in terms of tax fairness among all companies, including those that are friends with President Trump. We should not back down on this. When we talk about a global minimum tax, why should Americans and American companies get preferential treatment? Why is there a special arrangement for them? Why are the Americans calling the shots here, or rather, why are they calling the shots over on that side of the House? That is a valid question. Why do we have the same environmental policies as President Trump? Why are we backtracking? Many members in that caucus across the aisle know how bad things are and realize that they are betraying their own principles. They know it and they say so. They are not being masters of their destiny. They are backing down. The government backed down on the digital services tax, the levies and the CRTC’s decisions to please the U.S. President. Quite apart from what Quebeckers might think, the title is garbage. It is very sad. I want to come back to the issue of health care and services. What is the Quebec government asking for? It wants an increase of at least 5% in health transfers after 2027-28. However, not only are we being told that funding will be reduced, but also that it will be unpredictable. They will tell us they brought in a one-time transfer, that they renewed the mental health transfer. Sure, but they also devoted an entire section of the budget to explaining how they want to make the government more efficient. They are talking about Crown corporations and reducing the number of public servants. They want to cut 15%. Now they are even making cuts to the Translation Bureau staff working for the House of Commons. When it comes to mental health transfers, they claim they want to make government more efficient. They are telling Quebec City that they intend to draw up sector-specific agreements and are asking for floors full of civil servants in Quebec City to manage those health care agreements. If the government truly believes in those values and principles and wants to streamline government, those principles should apply at all times and in all circumstances. Efficiency is not achieved by Ottawa micromanaging provinces, centralizing everything and restricting the provinces’ ability to act. If the government genuinely believes in these principles and is in favour of efficiency, it should always be in favour of efficiency. The government is intervening in the oil industry while refusing Quebec’s demands. Perhaps it is because there is a legitimately elected sovereigntist government in Quebec City. The government says it wants to promote Canadian unity and is committed to that objective. In the past, that led to all sorts of scandals. We hope they do better than they have in the past. It is almost like a bad movie that drags on and on, only to end on a flat note. They are bringing back Heritage Minutes. They are offering skating rinks for the 160th anniversary. The provinces asked for $100 billion in infrastructure over 10 years. The minister magnanimously gave them half of what they had asked for. I have nothing against skating rinks, though they are a municipal jurisdiction in a lot of ways, but the government is investing billions in promoting Canadian unity. These are not small amounts; it is spending billions of dollars. The government is bringing back military history. Of course, Remembrance Day is fast approaching, and those who followed a higher cause and gave their lives or served in the military must be honoured in a strictly non-partisan way. However, do we have to bring back Stephen Harper’s beloved War of 1812, like the government did in the budget? Give me a break. I do not know whether the Liberals read it, because not all of them were at the lock-up, but I hope they get a chance to discuss it in caucus. They went to the trouble of including in the budget their plans to review the standards for manufacturing the flag of Canada. The government has time on its hands and grand plans. I am not disputing the importance of this to the government, but I would love to see the government apologize to Quebeckers and explain that health transfers will have to wait until another day, another time, and their surgery will have to wait too because the government needs to review the Canadian flag manufacturing standards. I would love to see that. Now I want to talk about airport privatization. The Prime Minister was in Antigua and Barbuda with Australian officials. Did he seal the deal to sell our airports to Australians? Will they release the white paper on airport management that the department is working on? Was Quebec consulted? Will the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec be able to participate? Do we have any information on that? Does the Government of Quebec have any information on that? Can we challenge the way airports are managed? That would be perfectly fine, since it is our job to do that. Airport authorities need to be consulted in some way. Airports are drivers of economic development, not just runways and infrastructure that transport people from point A to point B. Can we do that? What we are witnessing is anything but a “masters of our destiny” approach. This is especially true if the rumours turn out to be true and Australian investment funds end up buying our airports. Those same investment funds drove up the cost of air travel in Europe. Is that the fate that awaits us? I would like to know more about how selling our strategic assets to foreigners makes us masters of our destiny. There is also the public finances. According to the minister’s bookkeeping, there is going to be a $4.4-billion net surplus of investments next year, but the debt will increase by almost $60 billion. The minister made up a new kind of investment that is not recognized by the private sector. He is trying to disguise his deficits. If someone tries to use this definition of “investment” in their financial statements, the Canada Revenue Agency will be all over them and they might end up in jail. If a business does something like that, it is called fraud. What is in there? It is tax expenditures: 40% of the investments are deductions. Nothing of the sort exists anywhere else in the world. The Liberals say that it is done in England, in the U.K. and in Singapore, but it does not exist. They say these are investments, but there are no asset maintenance programs that take depreciation into account. When investments are made in assets, depreciation has to be taken into account. If these were investments, the Liberals would realize that there is nothing to maintain because there is no capital. That means these are not investments. What is in there? They are listing the cost of spies for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS, as investments. They are counting that as capital. The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun will like this. I know him and I know that he will like this. He comes from the private sector. He is looking at me skeptically. They want to pay CSIS spies to better protect the public against terrorism, espionage and other evolving threats, and they are listing that as an investment. They are not including the salaries of their public servants. They are making cuts everywhere. Public servants’ salaries? Now that is a problem. They have reduction targets for the public service. They are saying that the people who will work for the new Crown corporations do not count. It is no big deal to hide that, and apparently the spies who work for CSIS are not even real people, based on the way the accounting is being done. When we look at the public finances, we see that we are facing a deficit of over $60 billion. Basically nothing that the government is categorizing as an investment is actually an investment, simply because what the federal government considers capital is already accounted for in private sector accounting. We are talking about airports, ports and so on. The Minister of Transport knows that. The federal government basically has no public capital left. The Liberals are going to tell us that everything is fine. Why are public finances better than they thought? Inflation, that is why. Inflation juiced government revenues this year. It provided a tiny, short-term band-aid. Then there is oil, which is doing extremely well. That is what saved them today. This government loves to talk. Hardly any measures are listed at the end of the chapters, but there is no shortage of text, a true reflection of the Minister of Finance. When he bought his new shoes, I expect he said he wore size 58. He likes to indulge in verbal inflation. First, there was the superdeduction. This year, we have the mega deduction. We can only wonder what the next superhero will be called, maybe “batdeduction” or “spiderdeduction”. For equality’s sake, it could well be a “wonderdeduction”. We can only wonder what they might come up with. As for the structural measures that Quebec needs, ones that serve a purpose other than funding the oil industry, it is a drop in the bucket. They are going to talk to us about clean electricity. Their $50 billion is spread out through 2042. For clean electricity production over the next five years, there is $2.5 billion, but they have included gas and nuclear power in that figure. How much money has been allocated for clean electricity generation over the next two years? It is not $2 billion. It is not $1 billion. There is not a single cent set aside for clean electricity this year or next year. The Liberals took a whole host of measures that already existed, added them all up, lumped them all together, and now we are left with practically nothing for the next five years. Now they are travelling all over Canada saying the words “heat pump”. They are practising in front of the mirror, repeating “heat pump” over and over. They tell us there is $50 billion, but over the next five years, it is going to be $2.5 billion. We were expecting some of these measures, like the GST credit, the credit for artists, the $600 million, but that does not negate the need for the digital levy. We recognize that these measures represent progress, and we think that is good. It is good that the government listened to our suggestions. I myself have had several conversations with the Minister of Finance. It is important to understand that the Government of Quebec is no less legitimately elected. If anything, it is is even more legitimate, because it is our nation’s parliament. The Liberal members believe that, because they were elected here, the Government of Quebec should take a back seat. We in the Bloc Québécois believe that, here in this Parliament, the voice of Quebec, no matter how many people represent it, must not be silenced in favour of a pan-Canadian partisan line. That is our job, it is the core of our efforts, and it is what we will do by voting against this budget. Now, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan, I would like to move the following amendment to the amendment: That the amendment be amended: (a) by deleting paragraphs (a), (d) and (j); and (b) by adding the following: “(h) it reduces the health transfer escalator, which will significantly increase health care costs for the Government of Quebec and the provinces; (i) it increases spending on federal propaganda by reinstating Heritage Minutes and wasting taxpayers’ money on celebrations marking Canada’s 160th anniversary; (j) it acts irresponsibly by failing to take concrete action to combat climate change; and (k) it fails to reimburse Quebec and the provinces for the increased costs associated with processing asylum claims.”.”

“Homelessness is mainly Quebec's responsibility, and Quebec knows how to handle it. We asked for funding transfers with no strings attached so Quebec can deal with this crisis before winter. But the budget gives Quebec zero dollars in these transfers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. He knows I really like him. There is indeed a homelessness crisis. In Quebec, we are showing strong leadership. Ms. Marois spearheaded an initiative, and there will be a summit on homelessness. The Premier of Quebec is the minister responsible for the fight against homelessness. We asked the government to extend some important transition programs in the budget, including the Reaching Home program, and those programs have been renewed. We are happy about that, but homelessness falls mainly under Quebec’s jurisdiction in many ways. Quebec is responsible for rehousing people, Build Canada Homes, mental health and public safety issues. Quebec has that expertise. Because the homelessness situation is becoming more urgent with winter approaching, we asked for an unconditional transfer to Quebec, which developed expertise in this area some time ago, whether my colleagues like it or not. When reading the budget, I noticed that there was zero dollars in unconditional transfers.”

“Quebec's economy is not growing, and U.S. tariffs are hurting our forestry, steel, and aluminum industries. This budget should have had strong support for these sectors. I ask my colleague to tell us if there is anything in this budget that actually helps them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague and friend on his excellent speech. In his speech, he said that there was zero economic growth in Quebec. We are being hit hard by the U.S. government’s tariffs. Even though it has just lost its majority in both chambers, the tariffs remain in place. I would have expected this budget to include strong measures to support our struggling sectors in order to ensure their long-term viability. I am thinking of the forestry sector in the northern part of my riding. I am thinking of the steel, aluminum and metalworking industries in my city, the kind found throughout Quebec. I am thinking of all the strong sectors we have in Quebec that are being hit hard by tariffs. What measures would my colleague say are included in this budget to help them?”

“The budget has some good steps, but it does not go far enough. It misses money to refill the employment insurance fund. It also should give forestry companies cash advances to cover American duties. Tax credits are not enough while companies have their money tied up in the United States. I want the government to work with us on this before these companies close.”

“Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, some measures have indeed been introduced, often at the urging of the Bloc Québécois. However, they do not go far enough. We had called for a wage subsidy. Measures have been put in place through the EI system, but we also asked for a provision to replenish the fund if necessary. That measure is not in the budget. We also called on the government to give our forestry companies an advance to offset the countervailing duties. Doing so would not cost the government a single dollar, since the advance would simply become an asset on its books. Of course, the budget includes measures to support investment, but there is nothing better than investing with cash. Instead, companies are being offered tax credits and incentives while their own money remains tied up in a trust in the United States, pending a resolution that will take several years. I believe this proposal would be good for the forestry sector, and I expect we will continue our discussions with the government. I am hopeful that this will eventually happen. I am just worried there will not be many forestry companies left in Quebec by then.”

“The budget has good funding for housing and homeless programs. Quebec is best at building homes quickly and leading on homelessness. The federal government must send all housing funds and resources directly to Quebec without delay.”

“Mr. Speaker, as far as this issue is concerned, I believe it is primarily Quebec’s responsibility to take action. There are some positive elements in the budget. More non-market housing is a good thing. Strengthening programs that help people experiencing homelessness move into transitional housing is also welcome. We know that Quebec has signed an agreement with the federal government under Build Canada Homes because it is now recognized that Quebec is the level of government best positioned to build this housing more quickly. Obviously, what we would like to see is a streamlined process and for as much of that funding as possible to flow to Quebec. As for the homelessness crisis, with winter approaching, we want recognition of Pauline Marois’s leadership on this issue, recognition of the upcoming homelessness summit in Quebec, and recognition that the leadership on this file lies with Quebec. Today, to use a railway analogy that might please the Minister of Transport, Quebec finds itself in the second or third car of the train. All the necessary tools and resources must be transferred to Quebec without delay.”

“I support the tax credit for journalism in the budget, but the rest of the plan for culture is not enough. The $600 million for artists is only a one-time payment. The government still has not paid it out, and it needs to bring back the digital tax and the broadcast fee to give culture steady funding. It is false to claim my party made no requests for culture.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her excellent question. I also noticed in the budget that there was nearly $400 million earmarked for the Sommet de la Francophonie, which is to be held here. Perhaps this will allow the Prime Minister to find more time to meet with the Premier of Quebec before the summit. Joking aside, there are certain things we have been calling for for a long time. The Canadian journalism labour tax credit is being increased by 35% and will be expanded to include digital media. We had been advocating for that change, and we believe it is long overdue, so we welcome it. Take the $600 million announced for artists. The same problem will arise next year because the government has still not reinstated the CRTC levy. The cultural sector does not need a one-time payment. It needs funding to stay afloat. The money still has not been paid out, by the way. The money promised has yet to be paid out. The government must reinstate the digital tax. The government must reinstate this levy. We need structural measures. As I have said before, even a bad movie can have two or three good scenes. That does not mean that, taken as a whole, this is enough to convince us that this government supports culture to the extent that we would like. For the past year, they have been accusing us of not submitting any budget requests for culture. That is not true. I am disappointed that the members opposite who are saying this cannot seem to read more than two pages, because we submitted a very comprehensive document. It saddens me, because I think that if they had read the entire document last year, the Canadian journalism labour tax credit might have been introduced a year earlier.”