“I want us to keep debating this budget bill. It is too big and cuts off debate. It creates a new defence agency that lets the minister avoid fair competition and skip normal rules.”

“Madam Speaker, I have to say I am quite disappointed that here we are again with the Liberals’ shutting down parliamentary debate on such an important bill. Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, is a giant omnibus bill, over 330 pages long, with some proposed major changes to the way government operates. Under division 16 in the budget implementation act is the new defence investment agency act, and that act would open up a door of potential abuse and unethical behaviour by the government. In the section that actually talks about having competition, the Liberals list over 20 different different exemptions from competition, and it would make the minister responsible for the Defence Investment Agency immune from any criticism and give them a get-out-of-jail-free card for why any particular project or competitor is disqualified from that competition. We have this motion, instead of proper debate in the House right now that would allow Parliament to actually explore all the problems within division 16 of the budget implementation act, and instead of actually talking about how defence procurement could be used and abused by the government in power. Why not have the debate? Why do the Liberals always resort to shutting down parliamentary processes, in the name of cover-ups and Liberal largesse?”

“This bill changes too many different laws all at once, and we do not have enough time to debate it properly. Rushing big bills like this puts people's rights at risk. I want to know why the government will not give us more time to study it.”

“Madam Speaker, this is a 330-page bill that is divided into 16 divisions, plus the defence investment agency act, as the minister pointed out. It would amend things as diverse as the Bank Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, and the Pest Control Products Act, a wide variety of acts that also includes the Territorial Lands Act and the Red Tape Reduction Act. It is a bill that has had very few hours of debate. In fact, if every one of these things had been brought forward, as I think they should have been, as their own bills, we would have had more time to debate each of those bills in its presentation than we will have to debate the entire act. It really feels as if the government’s failure to plan is something it is turning into an emergency for all of us. I do not think it is reasonable. I think that with bills such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-22, the rush and the sloppy drafting have put Canadians’ rights at risk. I would like to know why the member is not going to allow either legislators or the public sufficient time to really think through what would be happening in this very consequential bill.”

“Does this bill have any rules to control how the government gives out loans and grants? Are there any at all?”

“Madam Speaker, can the member speak to the guardrails in this bill in regard to making loans, advance payments, government guarantees, loan and credit insurance and grants? Are there any?”

“We have only debated this large bill for about three hours. I want to know if the member thinks we should actually debate and fix bills, or just cheer for whatever the government does.”

“Madam Speaker, the bill covers a lot of ground and has been debated for only about three hours. If the member thinks that is sufficient, does he believe that the House is a debating chamber where legislators debate relevant legislation with an aim to improve it, or does he believe that the chamber is merely an audience for people to clap and cheer for those things that are put before it by the current government?”

“Canadians are struggling with jobs, housing, and food. The government is shutting down debate on this huge budget bill after only three hours. If its plan is working, it should let us debate it.”

“Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. More than 112,000 Canadians have lost their job in just a few months. Food banks are reaching record levels of usage. Families are struggling to pay their mortgage, their rent and even their grocery bill. At a time like this, Canadians would expect members of Parliament to be debating solutions. They would expect their elected representatives to be examining every line of this massive omnibus bill and asking hard questions about it. Instead, the Liberals have decided to shut down debate after only three hours of debate on billions of dollars. If the government’s plan is working, why are Canadians falling behind, and if the government is so confident in its plan, why is it so afraid of letting Parliament debate it?”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →
• Echo ×104

  A repeated line

  “Canada is the only G20 country in a recession.”

  Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“Does the minister really think more government paperwork will help our military get the equipment they need faster?”

“Madam Speaker, does the minister believe that increased bureaucracy will ensure that our brave men and women in uniform get the equipment they need faster?”

“I do not support this bill because it spends too much money and gives the minister too much power. It lets the minister shut down business competition, create government-run corporations, and fire company leaders without giving a reason. I want the minister to admit that the government is overstepping its power.”

“Madam Speaker, although we are legislators, it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to carry out our fiduciary duties and responsibilities to the taxpayers of Canada and to properly vet all of the legislation and spending of the government. This bill opens up a huge abyss of extra spending. We are not against spending on national defence. I know the minister tried to say that I am trying to stop it. I want to make sure that we are spending money wisely and respecting the Canadian taxpayer. In this bill, which establishes the Defence Investment Agency act and makes changes to the Defence Production Act, the Liberals are adding in an exclusion that the minister can exclude companies and reduce the way companies can compete. It gives the minister an out so that he does not have to give reasons why any corporation is excluded. This is where it gets really interesting. It is giving the power to the minister, through an order in council, to “procure the incorporation of any one or more corporations for the purpose of undertaking or carrying out any acts or things” in the act. It also gives the power to the minister to “remove any members, directors or officers of a corporation”. Would the minister agree with me that this is overreach by the government, that it stinks of far-left policies, and that it is the nationalization of some of our industries here in Canada, which we witnessed under Pierre Elliott Trudeau?”

“The minister said this bill has guardrails for government loans, payments, and grants. I want him to list those guardrails.”

“Madam Speaker, I am starting to understand why the Premier of Quebec called the minister a disgrace to all Quebeckers. A day after he was made the Minister of Culture, he said he was fed up with language debate. It is clear the minister is fed up with all debate, based on his answers in this session this afternoon. The member for Red Deer asked a question about guardrails. He asked if there are “guardrails in this bill in regard to making loans, advance payments, government guarantees, loan and credit insurance and grants”. The minister said yes. Therefore, I would ask him to please list those guardrails.”

“I want the minister to explain why he is ending debate on this 330-page bill after only a few hours.”

“Madam Speaker, when I was first elected, I could not speak one full sentence in French. I spent time learning French so that I could treat my francophone colleagues with respect. We have pointed out that the government does not want to debate the bill. Not only does this minister not want to debate this bill, but he also does not want to get into what he calls an identity-based debate about Quebec. For that reason, Quebec’s premier called him a disgrace to all Quebeckers. Can the minister explain why, having alienated Quebec, he now wishes to alienate all Canadians by terminating debate on a 330-page bill after only a few hours?”

“Canada is in a recession. The Liberals are shutting down debate on this budget bill instead of letting Parliament study it properly. I want to know why they are doing that.”

“Madam Speaker, governments that are confident in their ideas welcome debate. Governments that are uncertain of their ideas shut it down. Canada is now the only G7 country in recession. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are falling behind, yet instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine a budget that would affect every Canadian, the Liberals are once again shutting down debate. The government tells Canadians to trust its plan. Trust is earned through openness, accountability and debate, not by cutting debate short. Why are the Liberals so determined to prevent Parliament from giving it the scrutiny Canadians deserve?”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “Canada is now the only G7 country in recession.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since June 1.

  Every time it was said →

“Conservatives did not shut down Parliament, and we cannot do that. The Liberals are the ones who shut down Parliament.”

“Madam Speaker, members cannot mislead the House. The Conservatives never shut down Parliament. We do not have the ability to shut down Parliament. The only party that shut down Parliament was the Liberal Party when it prorogued Parliament.”

“The government is cutting short the debate on this 332-page bill. We do not have enough time to debate it, so Canadians will not understand what it does.”

“Madam Speaker, we are debating the time allocation the government has given, which is basically shortening the debate on 332 pages of law. It gave us only three hours before, so for each 100 pages, we have only one hour of debate. Members can imagine the shortcoming of Canadians not being able to understand what is going on with these bills and not being able to understand the consequences of what the government is providing.”