HANSARD: Budget speech and debate

Click below to read my budget speech and debate

Debates of Nov. 27th, 2025
House of Commons Hansard #62 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session

Bill C-15
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1
Government Orders

November 27th, 2025 / 11:10 a.m.

 

 


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister was elected on a promise that the Liberals would stand strong against Trump and would fight American tariffs. He even did an elbows-up dance following the election.

What has the Liberals' rhetoric, with Canada strong against Trump and elbows up, looked like since the election? The U.S. has imposed a 35% levy on all Canadian goods, even though most are exempt under an existing free trade agreement. Trump has slapped sector-specific levies on Canadian goods, including a 50% levy on metals and a 25% levy on automobiles. Trump has imposed a new 10% tariff to the existing anti-dumping and countervailing duties on Canadian lumber, bringing the levy to over 45% and crippling the industry. In addition, 25% has been imposed on certain finished wood products.

In the Prime Minister's definition of elbows up to appease Trump, he has rescinded the digital services tax, which is a 3% tax for massive multinational companies operating in Canada such as Google, Amazon and Netflix. This is a tax the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects would generate over $7 billion in new revenues over five years for Canadians.

While the Prime Minister wanted Canadians to believe that every tariff blow Trump threw our way was met with retaliatory countertariffs, in reality, after the initial hurrah, the Liberals removed all tariffs on goods from the U.S. that are covered by CUSMA. They then quietly removed countertariffs on American goods that are not compliant with CUSMA.

As if the Prime Minister was put on steroids to further appease Trump, he committed to boosting defence funding from 2% to 5% of GDP, and we saw a commitment of a whopping $81.5 billion over five years made in budget 2025.

It does not stop there. To further placate Trump, under the guise of border security to address Trump's imagined fentanyl border crisis, Bill C-12 was the Prime Minister's first piece of legislation in this House, a dangerous omnibus bill that threatens Canadians' civil liberties, infringes on their privacy rights, eliminates due process and takes a page directly from Trump's anti-refugee, anti-rule-of-law agenda.

When Trump took offence to an ad that accurately recounted former president Reagan's view on tariffs, the Prime Minister kowtowed to Trump and apologized. This is not exactly elbows up, is it?

The Prime Minister's actions are a far cry from his election promises to Canadians, and as it stands, Canada has become the only G7 nation without a trade deal with the U.S.

During the campaign, the Prime Minister promised Canadians he would get clean energy projects built. At no point did he say he would end the tanker ban and build a new pipeline. What is the Prime Minister doing? He is signing an MOU with Premier Danielle Smith on advancing a new pipeline to the B.C. coast, an agreement developed behind closed doors with zero consultation with B.C. and first nations.

British Colombians do not want another megaproject that increases emissions and threatens coastal ecosystems. The Prime Minister cannot justify negotiating a pipeline deal with Alberta that excludes B.C. entirely, affected first nations and impacted communities. None of them has been at the table.

British Colombians will not stand for the lifting of the tanker ban, and B.C. Liberal members know it. Instead of sowing division, why does the Prime Minister not work on truly nation-building projects that are good for the economy and the environment and help Canada meet its Paris accord commitments?

Canadians were told that budget 2025 is a bold statement of generational ambition. They were shown the headline figure of $1 trillion in public and private investments over five years and told that this budget would secure the future of Canada, yet despite all the fanfare, few Canadians feel inspired. Why? It is because the budget, at its core, is underwhelming, contradictory and deeply conservative in its priorities.

It is back to the future with austerity and the Liberal government.

The Prime Minister calls this a “generational investment budget”, but it is not the kind of investment that working Canadians have been asking for. It misses the mark.

The budget shifts resources away from everyday people in an affordability crisis. It has very little investment in indigenous communities and indigenous-led projects, and there is no mention of the calls for justice on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls.

It delivers deep cuts, at 15% across most ministries, and downsizes critical public services, all to make room for a record increase in military spending. The government is reining in its day-to-day spending through a so-called comprehensive expenditure review, cutting $13 billion annually by 2028-29, for a total of $60 billion in savings, it says. That means shrinking public services, targeting the very frontline workers who deliver the essential care that everyday Canadians rely on.

The Prime Minister hides the impact of the cuts in euphemism. The budget is riddled with terms such as “modernizing”, ”streamlining” and “recalibrating”. What does that really mean? It really means that services will be cut, and it imposes austerity that disproportionately affects women, frontline workers and vulnerable communities.

For the workers and families who have lost their jobs, or the 40,000 workers who will lose their jobs because of the 15% cut across all departments, with a few minor exceptions, there is no support for them in budget 2025. There is no EI reform for these workers and their families, retraining or transition; there is no support for them. It is not exactly a worker-friendly budget, is it? Canadians are struggling with the cost of living, a housing crisis and an overstretched health care system, yet the government is asking workers and families to tighten their belts while defence contractors get a windfall.

The cuts to the federal public services are short-sighted and unnecessary. These are the people who process benefits, GIS applications for seniors, tax refunds and EI applications, which are services that keep government running. Undermining these things means undermining services that Canadians need. A truly generational budget would invest in people, in affordable homes, green jobs, public health care, climate change mitigation and a post-secondary education system that has been decimated by the Liberals' mismanagement of student visas.

On the issue around housing, Build Canada Homes comes with a lot of hype and promises. The government talks about delivering 40% affordable units and deep affordability tied to 30% of the median income. It turns out that this commitment only applies to six sites. For the rest, there are no affordability criteria attached. Not only that, but there is only $6.5 billion of new money in budget 2025; the rest of the $25 billion is carried over from previous budgets. With that, so far, the only target we have heard from the government is that 4,000 new homes are scheduled to start next year. This is a drop in the bucket of the million non-market housing units needed over a decade to address backlogs.

The government is also leaning heavily on provinces to subsidize deep affordability. With no firm commitments, and without clear affordability guarantees, Build Canada Homes will fail to deliver the affordable homes Canadians desperately need.

Budget 2025 promises a lot, a trillion dollars of investment, but most of it is pre-committed, reclassified or private sector investment that may never materialize. The government talks a lot, and there is a lot of fanfare and hype, but in reality, much of it is just hot air, with recycled announcements and recalibration of existing programs and investments that have already been committed. A $25-billion headline number shrinks to just $0.3 billion in new R and D—

 

 


The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

 

 


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

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke is a part of the Conservative Party of Canada alliance to try to cause an election. This is the reality. She actually voted with the Conservative Party.

At the end of the day, what is in the budget? It is a budget that provides pharmacare, dental care and food for children in schools. She actually believes the Conservative Party would be better at governing Canada than the current Liberal Party.

 

 

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

 

 


Kevin Lamoureux Winnipeg North, MB
Liberal

The Conservative Party stands and gives her applause.

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, does she truly believe the investments that the budget is making into communities from coast to coast to coast would be better done with the Conservative Party? Is that what she really believes? Why could she not identify things in the budget that are to the benefit of her community and, indeed, all Canadians, and vote—

 

 


The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès)
Alexandra Mendes

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

 

 


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Speaker, well, let me be very clear: I voted against the Liberals. I did not vote with the Conservatives; I voted against the Liberals. Why? The NDP actually tried to make this work and went to the government, saying we would support the budget if, for example, it invested $1.5 billion in co-op housing with affordability criteria attached; if, in fact, it brought forward an EI support program for workers who are going to be losing their jobs; and if it would not impose cuts that would impact indigenous people's services, for example.

There was a list of things we brought to the government, and it rejected them. This is what we voted against: the government refusing to support the Canadians who need help the most during this affordability crisis.

 

 

 


Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Bloc

Madam Speaker, thank you for maintaining order here in the House. That is the way it should be. I want to highlight that and tell you how much I appreciate it. I just came from a committee meeting where, once again, there was a lot of partisan behaviour. It was all very performative.

I am tired of the debate focusing on whether or not people voted against the budget. Can we please talk about the real issues? When I go home to my riding, people ask me if the government is abandoning the forestry industry. When I ask my colleague a question, I want to hear actual facts. I want to hear constructive ideas, specific measures.

We are going to go home to our ridings, where the forestry industry is one of the economic drivers and where people are concerned about climate change, so I would ask my colleagues to stop talking about whether they voted for or against the budget.

What does my colleague think?

 

 


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Speaker, I will tell the House what I was looking for in the budget that I did not see. I was looking for affordable housing at scale, that is, a million units over a decade to deliver for and address the affordability housing crisis. I was looking for community housing for people in Quebec, in British Columbia and across the country, not a measly $500-million investment that will barely, barely have an impact. We were looking for investment in public transit in Quebec and in British Columbia. We were looking for an east-west energy grid connecting provinces with clean energy. Instead, Canadians are left with incremental changes, tax breaks for corporations and more austerity for the public sector. Not to mention, there was no support for the environment.

 

 


Dave Epp Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON
Conservative

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the member characterized this as a Conservative budget. While there were elements of it lifted from our election campaign, and I want to thank the government for including some of those measures, I will agree with her in that we both opposed the budget but, obviously, for varying reasons. What makes this not a Conservative budget is the fact that there is a $78.3-billion deficit.

Would the member across the way not agree, with the fallout of a $78.3-billion deficit, the inflation that will surely again fall, the bills that will be in today's and future taxes on our children and our grandchildren, those effects affect the very people the member across the way is purportedly trying to help? The effects fall disproportionately to the lower socio-economic levels, the very people she identified in her speech as those she wants to help.

 

 


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Madam Speaker, this is an austerity budget. This is actually what the Conservatives want. However, we do not support this. What the NDP called for was for the government to protect services, to support working families and to ensure deeper affordability measures. If we are serious about Canada's future, about—

 

 


The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Foothills.

 

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2025/11/27/jenny-kwan-1/

Latest posts

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates