“The Liberals took a full year to bring this budget bill forward. Part of this bill sets up the Defence Investment Agency, but another bill would cancel that and turn the agency into a Crown corporation instead. That will just reduce oversight and give more power to the prime minister's friend who runs it. The agency has delivered announcements instead of actual military equipment. I want the section creating this agency removed from the bill, and I want the government to properly equip our armed forces.”

“Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise this morning to talk about the report stage of Bill C-31, part 2. For everyone watching out there, Bill C-31, part 2, is the budget implementation act from last year. We are talking about 12 months ago when this budget was actually presented to the House. We are only now dealing with it because the Liberals continue to drag their feet. This is not a priority for them in bringing this forward. They can sit there and heckle all they want, but if the truth be told, Bill C-31 was brought into this House six months ago and we are only getting to report stage now. The Liberals have control of the legislative agenda. If this was a priority for the government, the Liberals would not be here talking about the budget implementation act for budget 2025 when we are just about to hear about budget 2026 later this week. This is just bizarre for the financial planning for our country. The government holds it at such a low priority that we are dealing with legislation that is over 12 months old. We are at the end. We have to keep in mind that the fiscal year for the Government of Canada is April 1 to March 31. The fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, is what this budget actually deals with. We are dealing with a part of a budget that was already passed and dealt with six months ago, so it is just bizarre that here we are, more than six months after the fiscal year has ended, talking about the budget implementation act at report stage. I am going to target most of my comments around division 16 in the budget implementation act, which establishes the Defence Investment Agency. It is completely contrary to what the Liberals are now doing through Bill C-40, which makes the Defence Investment Agency a Crown corporation. As colleagues know, the Conservatives have always supported the Canadian Armed Forces. We have supported our sailors, our soldiers and our aviators with the equipment and support that they have needed, going back since the world wars. What we have witnessed after 11 years of these Liberals is that the Canadian Armed Forces was neglected during that entire time. The way that they have tried to pad the numbers and do creative accounting, which I will dig into as we go forward, really does talk about how the government is all about being performative. If we look at the Defence Investment Agency, which has been operating now for over a year as a part of PSPC, it is all announcements and no deliveries. It is all flash and smoke with no actual fire. We have not seen any kinetic equipment being delivered into the hands of the Canadian Armed Forces since it stood up the Defence Investment Agency. We do not know why the government moved from Bill C-31 and establishing the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone agency under Bill C-31 to where now it needs to have Bill C-40 to establish the Defence Investment Agency as a Crown corporation. What has happened in the last six months since this bill was tabled in the House in May earlier this year? I can tell colleagues that this really does come down to Doug Guzman, who is the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, and a BFF of the Prime Minister. They both worked at Goldman Sachs. They are both investment bankers. Here is an individual who has had little to no experience in national defence or defence procurement and is now the CEO. He was frustrated having to deal with the bureaucracy and frustrated with not having the power he enjoyed in the private sector. He was not happy with the checks and balances, and how the Defence Investment Agency had to go through the Treasury Board and cabinet to get approvals for purchases. He threatened to rage-quit. All of a sudden those stories came out and all of a sudden we got a new bill before the House called Bill C-40. I think it is important to note that clause 47 of Bill C-40 says that if Bill C-31 passes before Bill C-40 does, which is now at the defence committee, division 16 of Bill C-31 will be deleted. It will be repealed even if it is brought into force by the government through the Governor General. If Bill C-31 and Bill C-40 pass, Bill C-40 being dealt with at committee now and having its first meeting on it on Thursday, unless the Liberals continue to slowly drag Bill C-31 through the legislative process, division 16 will be repealed. Why we are still dealing with Bill C-31 and division 16 is beyond me. I do not know why the government would not have been proactive on this and just removed division 16 from Bill C-31 on its own. It had a chance to do it at committee and now at report stage, and, of course, it has not done that. We have one concern about Bill C-40. As I mentioned, the CEO and the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement are not happy about dealing with the checks and balances that exist within our parliamentary process. The way the government is supposed to act and protect the taxpayer to ensure that the dollars are being spent wisely is that all industry and competitors are allowed to bid on projects and to procure from all the players in Canada and around the world the equipment that we need to defend Canada and work with our allies. Bill C-40 would bring more power to a single minister responsible for the Defence Investment Agency, power that can be transferred to the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, whom we assume would be Doug Guzman, which would increase the risk of more political interference and, because it is a Crown corporation, make it less transparent and less accountable to us as parliamentarians. We have a fiduciary duty and responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada. Yes, we want to buy more equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. We have to as we live in a dangerous world, but we also need to ensure that we are protecting taxpayers. We have to make sure that we are getting the right equipment, and that means we have to listen to the Canadian Armed Forces. The Liberal government procured equipment that has not been in the best interests of the Canadian Armed Forces. I am talking about the Kingfisher CC-295s, which were sole-sourced by the Liberals before they had the Defence Investment Agency. Because they kind of fumbled along in the replacement of our search and rescue fixed-wing aircraft in B.C. and across the country, they ended up buying a plane through a sole-source agreement that is not fit for purpose. That plane is still not certified as operational. Not all the planes have been delivered, even though this contract goes back several years, and the Canadian Armed Forces is making do with our old equipment, including some of our old Hercules, to get the job done to protect Canadians when we have to do search and rescue operations. The other one is the GlobalEye. The Defence Investment Agency in May of this year at CANSEC advised the Prime Minister, when he was speaking at CANSEC, to go ahead and purchase the GlobalEye without having a competition. We have three options. All three of them do not necessarily meet the operational shortfalls of the Canadian Armed Forces, but we should have run a competition to see what was in the best interest of industry, Canadian jobs and making sure we have the right platform for the Canadian Armed Forces to do the job it does. Again, there was political interference in sole-sourcing a product that is not necessarily useful to protecting Canada. We are also seeing political interference from the government on buying F-35s. It is reviewing it and reviewing it. We just learned last week it is putting a pause on buying Black Hawk helicopters for our special operations forces. Every time it does this, it makes Canada less safe. The Liberals like to talk a good game on national defence, but at the end of the day, they have not delivered. They have done creative accounting to come up with the numbers to meet the NATO target. Their actual expenditure is based upon the Library of Parliament. It was only at 1.05% in the last year under Justin Trudeau. When we look at the last three years of Trudeau, we see that he cut the defence operation budget by $2.7 billion and we know that the government today, despite saying it was spending more on national defence, is actually cutting the operational budget by 10%. That reduces our readiness. That equals over $2.9 billion out of the budget of the Canadian Armed Forces. That has to stop. We need to make sure we properly equip, train and increase the readiness of our forces.”

“The government under Justin Trudeau neglected the military for ten years and failed to buy equipment. When it finally raised pay for our troops, it took the money right back through higher rent and smaller housing allowances, leaving them with less pay. The member should apologize for how the government treats our forces.”

“Madam Speaker, it is rich coming from the member for Winnipeg North. He knows for a fact that he sat in this chamber when we watched the government, under Justin Trudeau, continue to claw back and not make any procurement choices for the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that the wage increase for the Canadian Armed Forces was well overdue, long overdue, because the government did nothing of the sort for the 10 years under Trudeau. I can tell members that immediately after the government gave the actual increase, it clawed it back. Guys were having to pay more for rent and had their housing allowances decreased, and because of that, their actual take-home pay was less. He should apologize for the shell game and smoke and mirrors that the government continues to play with our forces.”

“I agree that people with mental health issues and disabilities deserve government support. The Liberals have not given it to them. Their housing program has not built any homes. Fewer homes are being built, and young people cannot afford to buy one.”

“Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. There is no question that people who are dealing with mental health issues and other disabilities deserve the support of the government. Unfortunately, what we have seen under the Liberals is that none of that has happened. He talks about the Build Canada Homes program. It has not built any homes. Housing starts in this country continue to decline, and that is making it unaffordable for young Canadians to enter the housing market.”

“I want my colleague to remind the House how poorly equipped our military was in 2006, and how much the Conservative government improved it. Under Stephen Harper, the economy grew, and our yearly military spending increased by over $4 billion. Because our economy is doing so poorly now, the Liberals' military spending targets will actually mean less real money than what Harper spent.”

“Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to remind the House what exactly it was that Stephen Harper inherited when he became prime minister in 2006. I remember our troops being in Afghanistan in green combat uniforms and Iltis Jeeps. By the end of that combat mission, our troops were some of the best prepared and best equipped in the world. The Liberals talk about the 1% of GDP, but the GDP grew so much when Stephen Harper was prime minister that actual defence spending grew by over $4 billion a year annually for our troops. This information can easily be searched. At the current rate of economic collapse in this country, 2% of the Liberals’ GDP is probably going to be less than 1% of what Harper did.”

“The previous Conservative government actually grew military spending and bought new tanks, planes, and helicopters. We did not inflate our numbers like the Liberals do by counting thousands of Coast Guard workers as military defenders.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague from Ponoka is completely right. Not only were we growing the budget, we were growing the investments in the Canadian Armed Forces and making sure they had things like new LAVs, new tanks, new TAPVs, new Chinook helicopters, new Hercules aircraft and new C-17s. All that had been bought, and our actual increase in defence spending took us up to over 1.4% under the old system, where we only calculated defence spending and did not add in, as the Liberals have done, everything from the Canadian Coast Guard. We just saw a story in Blacklock’s this week that 7,378 Coast Guard employees are now national defenders, even though none of them are paramilitary or trained in the military and have told us at committee over and over again that if they came into conflict, they would leave the scene of the event.”

“The government cannot manage its own work. They brought in a second huge budget bill only a month after the first one. Despite all these pages, it does nothing to help Quebec's forestry or aluminum industries, and it does not help the country. I want to hear what the member thinks about this.”

“Madam Speaker, the government is incompetent at managing its affairs. We are debating here today the second budget implementation act from last year. This means we already passed a first budget implementation act, and then a month later, the Liberals had to table a second budget implementation act, which is 352 pages long. This is another omnibus bill on top of the first one they passed, yet they still did nothing, as the member pointed out, for the forestry sector in Quebec, and they did nothing to actually help the aluminum industry in Quebec. They put forward all of this big, heavy legislation, yet they are not doing anything that is actually beneficial to this country. I wonder what the member has to say about that.”

“Prices went up 4.7% in Newfoundland and Labrador, fuel went up almost 79%, and travel costs went up over 11%. How can the Prime Minister say life is more affordable now than it has been in ten years?”

“Madam Speaker, most recently, according to Statistics Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador’s inflation rate was 4.7%, compared with 3.1% nationally. Fuel prices increased 78.6% in one year, and transportation costs increased by 11.6%. I am curious. How does the member square those statistics with the Prime Minister’s claim that affordability is the best that it has been in a decade?”

“This bill is 352 pages long and hides big policy changes. The Liberals promised in 2015 to stop using huge bills that stop proper debate. I want the member to say if he still stands by that promise.”

“Madam Speaker, Bill C-31 is a massive bill of 352 pages that buries major policy changes behind hundreds of pages. Does the member still stand by the Liberal promise in 2015, which he was here for, to end the use of massive bills that prevent Parliament from proper review and debate, or is this just another political flip-flop that he expects Canadians to believe?”

“The government is mismanaging Canada's money. After 11 years of Liberal rule, we went from a surplus to a huge deficit, and the national debt has more than doubled to $1.5 trillion. Instead of spending billions on consultants, business subsidies, and an overpriced rail project, the government should cut taxes and remove all federal taxes on fuel.”

“Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate today and to celebrate your birthday. I wish you a happy birthday today, November 3. I would also like to congratulate my niece, Anne‑Audrey, who is also celebrating her birthday today. She was born on November 3, 1988, and was my parents’ first granddaughter and first grandchild. Obviously, it was a momentous occasion. I remember it like it was yesterday. I wish a happy birthday to Anne‑Audrey and to everyone else born on November 3. What we are witnessing today is rather peculiar. The bill we are debating right now, which is at the report stage following a committee study, deals with the implementation of tax measures. We are just hours away from the next budget being tabled, yet we are still debating the previous budget. I think that my colleagues on the government side, who are now in charge of leading Canada with a majority secured due to floor crossers, should perhaps do a better job of adjusting their parliamentary agenda. Nevertheless, this give us an opportunity to debate Canada’s current fiscal situation and its future prospects. I would like begin by reminding the House of the commitments that we made and that we want the government to make when it tables its budget in a few hours, which basically boil down to leaving more money in the pockets of Canadian taxpayers. Canadian taxpayers know how to manage their own money better than the government, which takes their money and doles it out to those it deems to be the most deserving. That is not the right approach. Our Conservative approach involves lower taxes and more money in Canadians’ pockets. That way Canadians can make their own choices, rather than the government doing it for them. That is our vision. The same goes for the management of public funds. If the government does not have the money to cover all of its spending, then what happens? We end up with deficits and debt. What is debt? Debt is a bill that we are passing on to our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren, who have not been born yet, but who will have to pay because the public finances are being mismanaged today. I will come back to this a little later. Let us review the principles that guide Conservatives when making budget choices. Leaving more money in people’s pockets means lowering taxes. According to a recent report from the Governor of the Bank of Canada, inflation is being driven in part by rising transportation costs. Obviously, the best way to help bring those costs down is to eliminate taxes. That is what we proposed a few months ago. The government borrowed elements of the Conservative proposal. We hope that it will once again draw on our ideas but that this time, it will implement them properly and in full for Canadian families by eliminating all federal taxes on gas and diesel, suspending the GST on fuel all the way until next summer, and putting more money into the pockets of Canadians, who will put it to good use. The principle is sound, as evidenced by the fact that the Liberal government has already drawn inspiration from it. We believe that the government should go even further and implement our proposal to eliminate federal fuel taxes in its entirety. Now, the government also needs to be vigilant when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money left, right and centre. We must always bear in mind that there is a big difference between a subsidy and a tax credit. With a subsidy, the government takes money from all Canadian workers and businesses, through taxes and the GST, and redistributes it to the people it chooses. It is the government that picks the winners. That is what a subsidy is. Sometimes it can work. Too often, it does not. That is why we believe that the best way to help the economy is to cut taxes and also to reduce subsidies, because as our leader often says, corporate welfare has no place in Canada. When it comes to cutting unnecessary spending, consultants are still one of the areas that come to mind. It is shocking that the number of public service employees has increased while contracts awarded to consultants have more than doubled. It should be one or the other, not both. The government has also committed to a massive project, the Alto high-speed train, that could cost as much as $100 billion. We are not the ones saying this; it is the Parliamentary Budget Officer. She says the cost could climb to $100 billion, if not more. That said, I am not opposed to this type of project in principle, but we still need to know where we are headed, and right now we are headed in entirely the wrong direction. Worse still, the government has gotten it wrong from the very beginning of this project. It began by expropriating land in Mirabel, which is arguably the region of Canada that is the most sensitive on the subject of expropriation. Do not forget that, for three years, the current leaders led Canadians to believe that this would be a high-frequency rail project. Then, only days before leaving office, the outgoing prime minister announced that it would instead be a high-speed rail project. They completely turned this project on its head. Anyone with even a basic understanding of rail infrastructure knows that the difference between high-frequency rail and high-speed rail goes far beyond a few different letters in the names. There is a world of difference, and the cost is different, too. We hope that the government and the Prime Minister, who has committed to maintaining both the debt-to-GDP ratio and the deficit-to-GDP ratio at acceptable levels, will act on our request, particularly as the Prime Minister himself once raised this issue. This leads me to compare the situation as it stood 11 years ago and the situation as it stands today. Why am I talking about the situation 11 years ago? It is because, yes, 11 years and a few days ago, an election was held that brought the Liberals to power. What kind of financial situation is Canada in after 11 years of Liberal governance? I would remind members that there was no deficit and a $1.4-billion surplus in 2015. The deficit is now somewhere between $78 billion and $80 billion. I unfortunately have to add that, just two years ago, the deficit was expected to be around $40 billion, which was unbelievable at the time. Now, 18 months later, the deficit has doubled. I say this with all due respect, because anyone who sits in the House deserves respect, but who would have thought that the Prime Minister, who is recognized around the globe as a world-class banker, would perform worse than the drama teacher? That is the reality. Everyone thought Justin Trudeau was an irresponsible steward of public funds. Now this internationally renowned banker is doing even worse than Mr. Trudeau, with a deficit that is twice as large. Then there is the debt. Eleven years ago, the debt stood at roughly $616 billion. That was already high, obviously, but today it has climbed to $1,500 billion, pushing it into trillion territory. The debt now stands at $1.5 trillion. Those are the kinds of numbers that would have Captain Haddock shouting “billions of bilious blue blistering barnacles”, but in our case, it would be trillions. That is how big the debt is now. The problem is that debt is a bill that we pass on to our great-grandchildren. The government takes pride in having a Prime Minister with an outstanding international reputation when it comes to finance, yet Canadians are seeing little benefit from that experience. In closing, I have a question for the Canadians who are tuning in: Has their financial situation improved? Over the past 18 months, when Canadians shop at the grocery store, do they feel they are getting enough for their money? What about those who have children and who want to buy a home? They are facing higher interest rates than before, especially since the Bank of Canada recently announced that inflation and the key interest rate will go up. We are talking about 3% inflation. That is my question for the Canadians tuning in: Do they feel their financial situation has improved? When they go to the market, when they are looking to buy a home or when they are shopping, do they feel they are getting more for their money? I know very well that most of those Canadians, if not the majority or all Canadians, will reply that, no, their situation has not improved. That is why we want the government to change course with the upcoming budget.”

“The government's programs are not working. Twice as many Canadians use food banks now compared to five years ago. In my riding, people who used to donate to a food bank now have to use it themselves.”

“Madam Speaker, it is because these programs are not working. That is the problem. If they were working, we would know. The result of these programs is that there are now twice as many Canadians turning to food banks as there were five years ago. Just last week, I spoke in the House about the situation in Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and about Amélie et Frédérick, a food bank on Bastien Boulevard in the Neufchâtel area. Today, people are going to food banks for help, whereas five years ago, those same people were going there to donate. All of the wonderful programs that the Liberals have announced, and that they keep reminding us about with numbers like 1,883 people in this or that riding, are not working. If they were working, we would know.”

“The government divided seniors into two groups based on their age. A government should unite Canadians, not treat some seniors as second-class.”

“Madam Speaker, one of the most disrespectful things that Mr. Trudeau’s government did was to divide seniors, and this has not been challenged by the current Prime Minister’s government. I have always believed that the first duty of any government, and particularly of its leader, is to unite Canadians. In this case, not only did the government fail to unite them, but it actually divided them. It drew a distinction between younger seniors and older seniors. I could never have imagined a government acting in such a clumsy, insulting and divisive way. The government members should visit private retirement residences and nursing homes and talk to the seniors who built the wealth that Canada enjoys today. They should tell them to their faces that some of them are first-class seniors and others are second-class seniors. No one is happy about that.”

“I want my colleague to say more about our plan to cut gas and diesel taxes. Taxing diesel makes everything cost more, not just fuel at the pump.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I always love to listen to him in this House. One of the things he talked about in his speech was our Conservative plan to cut all taxes on gas and diesel. I wonder if he would like to take the opportunity, particularly with respect to diesel, to expand on why that means more to Canadians, not just with respect to what they pay at the pump, but the overall cost of goods, and why that is so important to Canadians and the cost of living crisis we have right now.”

“The government should cut all taxes on gas and diesel. The Bank of Canada says high transportation costs will keep inflation at 3.5% for a full year.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to pay all of my respects to my colleague from Newfoundland and Labrador. She is one of the key players we have on this side of the House, I would say even in the House itself, since the last election. The point is, yes, it is important to cut all taxes on gas and diesel. The Governor of the Bank of Canada published a report a few days ago highlighting the fact that, unfortunately, there will be a rise in inflation by 3.5% for a full year. What is that based on? Principally, it is because of the cost of transportation. By the way, when we talk about transportation right now, we are talking about gas and diesel. That is why we urge the government to follow our recommendation and cancel those kinds of taxes.”

“I remember when our government raised the retirement age from 65 to 67. Prime Minister Harper was just following advice from Bill Morneau, who later became Justin Trudeau's finance minister.”

“Mr. Speaker, yes, I remember pretty well the increase from age 65 to age 67. By the way, Prime Minister Harper at the time just followed the observations of Bill Morneau, who became, after that, the finance minister under Justin Trudeau—”

“The government has run growing deficits for years. Canadians cannot trust another huge bill full of promises. I am asking the member to admit that this bill cannot fix a decade of failures that made life too expensive.”

“Mr. Speaker, after years of budget deficits that keep growing under the Liberal government, Bill C-31 is another 300-page bill full of Liberal promises that Canadians cannot trust. Does the member agree that another massive bill cannot wipe away a decade of Liberal failures on affordability?”

“I want the government to take the defence agency section out of this bill. The government has already written another bill with a completely different plan for the agency. This plan gives ministers too much power to spend billions and pick suppliers without bids, with almost no reporting to Parliament. The military needs real contracts and equipment, not just press releases.”

“Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a word about fog. Storms can be dangerous at sea, but fog can be just as deadly, and sometimes even worse. In a fog, one cannot see the shore and other ships. Let us explore Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, specifically division 16. At more than 330 pages, a bill this size is its own fog bank. Lost inside it is division 16, which would create the Defence Investment Agency and would rewrite the Defence Production Act. I navigated warships for many years, so let me help guide us through this fog. I speak for the sailors of CFB Esquimalt and CFB Halifax, two ports that I am very familiar with. I speak for the veterans on Vancouver Island, for the workers who build and repair our ships, for the families of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford and for all Canadians whose tax dollars pay for the defence of Canada. I want every ship to get home safely, and I want Canada’s defence procurement to be efficient and effective and meet the operational requirements Canada now faces. I served this country, and the defence of Canada matters to me as much as it does to every Canadian. Procurement is how that defence gets built. A ship that gets home safely depends on a system that gets the right equipment. I do not believe this bill would make that happen. I am worried that a bill like this is much like a ship lost in the fog without a radar, so let me describe that fog. Division 16 would put the Defence Investment Agency into law. It is the government’s second design for the agency, and while this bill has not yet passed, there is already a third design before this House, Bill C-40. There are two bills, one agency and three versions. In fog, the danger is not only the rocks but other ships. When too many vessels are in the same water, none of them is sure where the others are. There are two bills in this fog and three different designs of the same agency, all in less than a year. The government will say it is building on what came before, but it is not. These designs do not build on each other. They collide with each other. Under Bill C-31, the agency would stand alone and answer to a minister, with the secretary of state somewhere in the chain. Under Bill C-40, it would become a Crown corporation with a new associate minister on top, and who they answer to is unclear. Bill C-31 would keep Treasury Board rules and report to Parliament, and under Bill C-40, it would be exempt from many of those rules. Under Bill C-31, the minister could take over a company’s board. Under Bill C-40, the language would change, adding power and stripping accountability. Bill C-40 is bearing down on Bill C-31, and Bill C-31 has barely been afloat. Already, division 16 is obsolete. Who is in command? Bill C-40 would create a new associate minister, and the agency would do as the minister directs. Above that sits two ministers in the Prime Minister’s Office, and who reports to whom is lost in the fog. There would be too much power in one person’s hand over too much money, with almost no accountability beyond a single annual report. A government that keeps redesigning its own agencies has lost its rudder and is chasing its own tail. By trade, I was a navigating officer, so let me use a phrase every sailor knows: “standing into danger”. That is exactly what is happening here. The greater threat is not this bill but Bill C-40, which would offer even less accountability, and here is why. When the government makes a major procurement, it normally comes from a competition. Companies bid, and the best offer that meets operational requirements should win. That protects the taxpayer and fairness, and it provides the best equipment for Canada. A sole-source contract is the exception. There are times when a sole-source contract is required. Operational needs call for it, and I do not argue otherwise, but the sole-source decision must be answerable to Parliament. This bill would provide little accountability back to Parliament, and Bill C-40 would provide almost none. Bill C-40 would give the minister 13 grounds for sole-sourcing and no duty to report on any individual contract, with only one annual report for billions of dollars. Our allies do not do it this way. In the United Kingdom, an independent regulator oversees the pricing of single-source contracts. In the United States, a sole-source contract must be justified in writing and made public. Bill C-40 would ask Canadians to accept less. Both bills would let the minister exclude a company from competing on national security grounds without explaining why. Under Bill C-40, the agency would have to do as the new associate minister directs. It is “must”, not “may”. Both would allow up to $1 billion from the consolidated revenue fund, with nothing in either bill noting how often, by whom or what conditions. Normally, Parliament approves how that money is spent. That approval is how the people of Canada keep their hand on the wheel. These powers are without precedent and without meaningful accountability over some of the most expensive projects in Canada’s history. Lost in the fog without accountability and oversight, this ship will soon run aground. For procurement, it means an announcement that never becomes a contract. To be fair, some contracts have been signed by the DIA. Some of them were already under way before the agency existed and the agency has claimed them, and a few are the agency’s own. However, too often, a victory lap comes at only an announcement. Let us take the Canadian patrol submarine project as an example. In July, to much fanfare, the Prime Minister announced a preferred supplier, but quickly stated that if that did not work out, there was another preferred supplier on standby. This is an announcement lost in the fog, not a signed contract, not a decision and not a delivery. Take GlobalEye. In May, the government announced a preferred supplier for up to six aircraft. Saab confirmed that no contract has been signed. There is not a contract and not a commitment to buy. The government itself has stated that this aircraft does not meet the air force’s operational requirements. This is an announcement standing where a signed contract should be. Even the F-35 program is lost in a fog, paused twice by the Liberals. Now, 18 months into a six-month review, two aircraft have been delivered while political posturing causes delays, putting the defence of Canada at risk. This is unacceptable. The Liberals can announce an agency. They can name a chief executive. They can create a board, but until ink touches paper, nothing has been bought. Our members in uniform do not need another redesign of the Defence Investment Agency. They need a decision, a contract and a delivery date. I do not stand here only to criticize. Let me offer a way forward. One, the Liberals should remove division 16 from this bill. It is being replaced within months, and no sailor worth his salt would sail this way. They should put effort into the new bill and get that one right. Two, they should keep sole-sourcing for genuine operational needs, with written reasons published, and when they are classified, they should show them to members who are cleared to see them. Three, they should report to Parliament on every ministerial direction, and account for what Canada receives for every $1-billion draw. Four, they should put conflict of interest rules in the bill. All who advise or decide on these purchases must disclose their interests and step aside to avoid conflict. Five, they should publish the decision process, with who decides the criteria and the scores each bid receives, and set real timelines. Last, they should put the defence of Canada first. Industry and jobs are important, but when it comes to the defence and sovereignty of Canada, operational requirements must take priority. A government patting itself on the back and waving around announcements with no contract signed does nothing for the defence of Canada, putting our sovereignty at risk. These are six steps and none is partisan. These are the standards we should expect, regardless of who holds government. When I navigated warships, we transitioned from paper charts to electronic ones. The tools changed completely, but the principles never did: keep the ship safe and defend it from the enemy. With Bill C-31’s division 16 soon to be overtaken by Bill C-40, it is not only the tools that are changing, but the principles of accountability. The safe passage through the fog is not this bill, and it is not Bill C-40, which would offer even less accountability. The defence and sovereignty of Canada are a pillar of this country and the first duty of any government. Today, that pillar is lost in the fog, rudderless, and the government has shown no way out. If the government cannot find its way out of the fog, we stand ready to do the work. Our sailors, soldiers and aviators defend the sovereignty of Canada every day, and they deserve a government that does the same.”

“The Liberals do not have a real plan for Canada's defence and sovereignty, only slogans. They have a majority government, and they are failing to protect this country.”

“Mr. Speaker, Montreal and Vancouver are not part of the Defence Investment Agency. I am not sure what the member is talking about. As far as the fog goes, the Liberals say they have a plan, but their plan is slogans. I have laid out very clearly that they are failing on the defence and sovereignty of Canada, and I also laid out some steps. I must remind the member opposite that the Liberals are in government. They have a majority. It is their job to do it, and they are presently failing.”

“I agree with my colleague. The government is giving itself too much power without enough oversight. People should be able to bring complaints to the ombudsperson. This bill does not hold the government accountable to Parliament.”

“Mr. Speaker, my colleague made an excellent point. As I said in my speech on Bill C-40, it is as if the government is building an oligarchy. There should be accountability. There should be a way to bring forward challenges to the ombudsperson. Absolutely, I agree with him. This bill, soon to be replaced by Bill C-40, has a complete lack of accountability back to Parliament.”

“The government's deficits grow every year, and prices keep going up. After ten years of Liberal promises, Canadians have nothing to show for it.”

“Mr. Speaker, year after year, the budget deficits grow and Canadians continue to pay higher prices. After a decade of promises from the Liberal government, what do Canadians have to show for them?”

“The government is spending lots of money on defence, but mostly giving us announcements instead of real results. We are not replacing old military planes in time, and that puts our country's safety at risk.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent work in this House. He asks what Canadians have to show for them. Well, there are some projects that are signed, and some are going to be completed and delivered, but they are few and far between. While I remain loyal to this country, it is my job to ask challenging questions. I know it is uncomfortable for the members opposite, because they like to revert to slogans, but I offer challenging questions to point out that for the amount of money being spent, the majority of what we are getting is announcements. As I said very clearly, this is putting the defence of Canada’s sovereignty at risk, as we see that aircraft are not replacing ones that are soon to be expired, and that is unacceptable.”