Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 · Report stage · now at report stage in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-31 would do

This budget implementation bill would change federal tax laws by delivering automatic benefits to lower-income individuals and adjusting business, excise, and international minimum tax rules. It would also ban most non-compete clauses under the Canada Labour Code and establish the Defence Investment Agency for military procurement. Additionally, the bill would transfer authority over air travel complaints to the Minister of Transport and make various other administrative changes across government.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

31 statements

Mike Dawson, Miramichi—Grand Lake

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. It creates a new defence agency and gives a minister the power to hand out contracts without open competition. The government has already failed to buy proper planes, helicopters, and submarines for our military. This bill adds more bureaucracy, cuts oversight, and lets the government take control of private companies. Conservatives will vote against it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour and a pleasure to stand in the House and speak on behalf of the people of Miramichi—Grand Lake. The Prime Minister fancies himself as an economist. He has the degrees. He has spent years telling Canadians that he understands how money works. Since being elected, many Canadians actually think he is a travel blogger, apparently. He loves the way bubbles from champagne tickle his nose, and he has a very refined palate for caviar and fine foods, but as he is a man who apparently understands money, I have a simple question for him: Has he ever read Milton Friedman? Friedman had a straightforward way of explaining why governments so often waste money. He said there are four ways to spend it. First, if we spend our own money on ourselves, we care equally about the price and the quality. Second, if we spend our own money on someone else, we care about the price but not so much about the quality. Third, if we spend someone else’s money on ourselves, we care about the quality but not so much about the price. Fourth, if we spend someone else’s money on someone else, we do not care much about the price and do not care much about the quality. That last one is the government. When it comes to defence procurement in this country, that is exactly what we have been watching with the Liberal government. Canada is known for a lot of things, like hockey, maple syrup and politeness that sometimes goes too far. We are not known for the success of our bureaucratic defence procurement. If we asked any contractor who has ever tried to get a job done on time and on budget, we would learn pretty quickly that the more layers of people we have spending other people’s money, the more things go wrong. In this country, Liberals have spent 11 years proving that point. Fighter jets are still not settled, helicopters have become a national punchline and submarines do not exist. Even the Snowbirds were flying aircraft older than most of the people watching them, and they are now grounded until sometime in 2030. This is not news; this is the Liberal record. Now the Liberals want to fix it by creating another agency and another minister, with broader powers to sole-source contracts and skip competitions. They want to take the most inefficient way to spend money and give it a new name and a bigger chequebook. Division 16 of the bill would hand that unnamed minister the authority to sole-source almost anything that can be tied to national defence or national security. The list of exceptions is long. It includes urgent operational requirements; supporting a sector of the economy; sensitive technology; research and innovation; agreements with other governments, probably the countries where our Prime Minister also holds citizenship; and a catch-all that lets regulations add still more reasons. Once these powers are in place, the competition can be skipped and the supplier can be excluded on security grounds without a full explanation or a real appeal. The bill would also remove the ordinary consequences if a competition that should have been run is not run. At the same time, it would allow the government to buy shares in corporations and replace directors and officers. This is not a minor technical change. This is power to take control of a company when it suits the government of the day. It sounds like socialism to me. There would be no serious requirement to report back to the House on how the powers are used, no clear obligation to tell Parliament when a national security exception is invoked and no meaningful check on loans, advance payments, guarantees or grants. I am sure the Prime Minister’s friends over at Brookfield Asset Management are grinning like the butcher’s dog. I can just imagine the world of opportunities that the bill would open for those who are fortunate enough to be in business with the Prime Minister. There is an old line attributed to Churchill: “Gentlemen, we have run out of money. Now we have to think.” Under the Liberal government, we ran out of taxpayers’ money a long time ago, but the difference is that the government is still not thinking. It is just adding more people to spend other people’s money on other people and calling it a success. The Defence Investment Agency has already been operating for over a year. It has held signing ceremonies. It has announced preferred partners. It has not delivered a single piece of equipment to the Canadian Armed Forces. When its own CEO reportedly considered stepping down because the bureaucracy was still too slow, that should have been the end of the argument. We do not fix bureaucracy by giving it a new letterhead and a larger budget. In my experience as a construction worker and a contractor, in my line of work, if a job keeps going over budget and past deadline, we do not solve it by hiring more project managers who have never swung a hammer. We put on our work boots, roll up our sleeves, figure out what is broken and fix it. We lead by example. The Canadian Armed Forces do not need another layer of bureaucracy deciding what they get, when they get it and what the company affiliated with Brookfield gets in the contract. Our men and women in the military need equipment on time and at a price that makes sense, with someone who can be held accountable when it does not happen. This bill would not do that. It would build a department around a problem and make it official. There was a famous line spoken by an American sailor at Pearl Harbor, spoken by our allies, I might add. Aboard the USS New Orleans, a man said, “Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition.” The line was celebrated throughout World War II and soldiers sang songs about it, because it rang true. In 2026, under the Liberal government, our soldiers now have neither of the two things that success in battle requires. I asked a question in the House yesterday about the forced closure of St. Luke’s Chapel at CFB Gagetown. Canadians and veterans’ groups have been told that there is no room for the Lord or for prayer in our military. Now the Liberals are keeping the ammunition from them as well. If the Liberal government keeps going, we are going to have to train our military on fighting with rocks and sticks. I can only speak for myself, but let me tell the House that I am ashamed of sitting in the House while we treat the brave men and women who serve this nation and put themselves in harm’s way with such disrespect. Conservatives have been clear about what we support: one point of accountability for defence procurement and a special secretariat in the Privy Council Office so that military contracts are treated as the priority they are, not another agency, not another minister with a new title and not a CEO paid more than the Prime Minister with no background in national defence who is secretly shuffling contracts to Liberal insiders. Conservatives will fight to get the sailors, soldiers and aviators of the Canadian Armed Forces the equipment they need, with efficiency and accountability and consistent with the interests of Canadian security, not Liberal insider advantage. This bill fails the test. It would expand control. It would reduce transparency. It would treat the Canadian Armed Forces as a problem to be managed by another bureaucracy rather than a force to be properly equipped and deserving of the respect and thanks of a grateful nation. The first duty of any government is defence of the realm. That duty is not fulfilled by creating more agencies; it is fulfilled by equipping the people who stand on the wall. That duty would not be fulfilled by this bill, so Conservatives will not support it. We will stand with the men and women who have to use this equipment, not the system that keeps failing to deliver it to them.

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

Liberal
“The member's speech was not accurate. Our Prime Minister met the 2% military spending target in his first six months, and military applications are the highest they have been in 30 years. The Crown corporation the member talked about will add accountability, efficiency, and transparency. He needs to rethink his position.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that speech failed to meet reality, quite frankly. It was off on so many points, and I wish I had the time to legitimately critique the member’s comments. The member started off by talking about credentials. I will compare the credentials of our Prime Minister to the credentials of the leader of the Conservative Party any day, as Canadians did in the last federal election. Then he went on to talk about our men and women in the forces. Is he serious? The Prime Minister, in his first six months, achieved the 2% target. We have seen more people putting in applications to be members of the forces this last year than in the last 30 years. In many ways, we are moving forward. The Crown corporation he was referring to would ensure more accountability, more efficiency and more transparency. The member needs to get outside of the Conservative—

Mike Dawson, Miramichi—Grand Lake

Conservative
“I oppose this bill. It gives a minister too much power to hand out defence contracts without competition and without reporting back to Parliament. It also lets the government buy company shares and take over private businesses. Our military needs proper equipment and accountability, not unchecked power for one minister.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite asked about accountability. Let us talk about accountability and what this bill would do. It would hand an unnamed minister the power to sole-source almost anything tied to defence and national security, 13 different reasons to skip a competition and the ability to exclude a bidder on security grounds without a full explanation, with no serious requirements to come back to the House and report how those powers are used. At the same time, it would allow the government to buy shares in corporations and replace directors and officers. That is not a minor technical change. That is the power to take control of a company when it suits the government of the day. It sounds like socialism to me. In my line of work, if someone wants to spend other people’s money with almost no questions asked, we do not call that efficiency; we call that a problem. The Canadian Armed Forces do not need more unaccountable power in the hands of one minister. They need equipment that arrives on time, with someone to hold—

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“This bill protects government workers from being sued by citizens when they make mistakes in good faith. This takes away citizens' rights and allows incompetence. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. We can agree that Bill C‑31 covers a great many things. There is one part that particularly bothers me. It is that public servants will be allowed to make mistakes. One of the divisions of Bill C‑31 introduces a new form of immunity. What does that immunity mean? It means that if a citizen has been wronged, they cannot sue a public servant, an official or an employee if the mistake was made in good faith. That means it allows incompetence, it allows mediocrity, and citizens are being stripped of their rights. What does my colleague think about that?

Mike Dawson, Miramichi—Grand Lake

Conservative
“I oppose this new defence agency. The government has a terrible record of buying military gear. They take decades to buy fighter jets, and the Snowbirds are grounded until the 2030s. This agency has run for over a year, but it has not delivered any new equipment to our military.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to know why we oppose this agency. He should look at the Liberal record. Fighter jets took decades and are still not settled. The Snowbirds are grounded until the 2030s. Canada is known for a lot of things. We are not known for success in Liberal defence procurement. The Defence Investment Agency has been operating for over a year, with signing ceremonies and preferred partner announcements, but not a single new piece of equipment has been delivered to the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

Liberal
“Our budget comes out tomorrow. It will keep helping people afford life, supporting our military, and building a stronger economy. This bill is a good example of what the government can do to help. I want to know if the opposition member thinks the government should do anything to help the economy, or just do nothing.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we have one more sleep until the November budget. It is coming up tomorrow, and I believe Canadians will see a continuation of what the Prime Minister and every member of the Liberal caucus have been pushing forward: dealing first-hand with affordability, supporting the Canadian Forces and building a stronger and healthier Canadian economy, one that works for all Canadians. Bill C-31 is a good example of the types of things the government can do. Does the member believe there is anything the government can do to support the Canadian economy outside of stepping aside and doing nothing?

Mike Dawson, Miramichi—Grand Lake

Conservative
“I oppose this bill because it wastes public money. It lets the government hand out contracts without open bidding, adds more middlemen, and barely reports back to Parliament.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this bill would not improve value for money. Let us go back to the basics. The Liberals do not care much about price. They do not care much about quality. That is the Liberal mentality. That is exactly what this bill would expand, with more powers to sole-source, more ability to skip competitions, more people in the middle spending other people’s money on other people, and almost no reporting back to Parliament. They are just adding more people to spend more of other people’s money and calling it reform. That is not a plan. That is a problem.

Michael Coteau, Scarborough—Woburn

Liberal

Linked statement

“I support this budget bill. It removes barriers and gives all Canadians, no matter where they grow up, a fair chance to succeed.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today. There are many reasons why MPs decide to run for office and are here today. We have different pathways and different motivations, things that have happened to us in our life that have led us here to the House of Commons. I have said this many times: I believe that every single member of the House has the intention to build a better country, a better Canada. I have never moved away from that. Some of our decisions come from so many different things. Our pathway in life and our trajectory can change based on just one simple incident. It could be anything that happens to us that brings us here. I remember when I was about 19 years old, standing in front of the House of Commons and saying to myself that one day I would like to be in the House of Commons as a member of Parliament to speak on behalf of my community. I was from a neighbourhood called Flemingdon Park, a small neighbourhood in Toronto. It is one of the suburbs. It was a neighbourhood that was very challenging. There was poverty, youth incarceration, youth violence, and youth gun violence that caused murder. It was a really challenging place to grow up for many people. A lot of people felt disconnected from the element of change. However, at 15 years old, something happened to me that was remarkable. There was a pool outside my apartment building. The pool had several buildings around it. It was full, and it was the end of winter. There was a hole in the fence, and kids were playing on the ice. I was afraid that some kid was going to fall through, so I told the superintendent that someone was going to get hurt. No one listened to me. Then I spoke to the manager a week later. No one listened to me. Then I picked up the phone and called the member of the provincial parliament, who was a Conservative, I have to say. Within one hour, the MPP fixed the hole in the fence. I was shocked. How could a 15-year-old just pick up the phone after a week of trying, and have that fence fixed? It changed my whole perspective on how we get things done. I was just amazed. I was very interested in politics because of that experience I went through. That simple experience sparked an interest in me. Over time, it became a passion. In my neighbourhood, often people felt like they were discounted, pushed aside and not listened to. That phone call gave me a completely different understanding of how we could actually help people. In my neighbourhood, there were so many young, talented people. I saw intelligence, creativity, ambition and potential. I went to elementary school with many of these young people. By the time we ended up in high school, or even junior high school, we started to see people go off on different pathways. There were a lot of young people I knew in my neighbourhood who were incarcerated. I was once interviewed when I was a school board trustee, and I said that I knew more young people from my neighbourhood, my community, who had been murdered than had gone off to university. People did not believe that, but it was the absolute truth. These were not statistics to me. They were people I grew up with. It always created a sense of sadness in me. I decided when I was a kid, after I saw that change with respect to the swimming pool and after I made these observations, that one day I would grow up to make changes to balance the playing field, open up opportunities and make things a bit more fair. I thought about going off to university. The next-door neighbour told me that I should really try. He had been a teacher in the Caribbean. He gave me the $50 to apply to go to university. I got in and got involved in politics. I did not know a single person involved in politics. I went to the public library. I decided that I was a Liberal, based on all the different information I read about multiculturalism, the creation of these great national programs, and the change in immigration policies that allowed my family to come to this country. I read about Louis St. Laurent’s bringing forward old age security in 1952, and about the Canada pension plan by a Liberal government in 1966 and the guaranteed income supplement in 1967. The philosophy of the Liberal Party really aligned with the observations that I experienced in my life. I went to the Liberal headquarters and I asked if I could volunteer. They opened the door, and I got involved. This brings me to this budget debate. When I look at a federal budget, it is not just the numbers I see. It is the opportunity that presents itself for Canadians. The decisions that families in Scarborough and the rest of the country have to make based on finances are tough decisions, and people are looking for ways to remove barriers in order to provide more opportunities. We have been able to create new national programs over the last decade, such as $10-a-day child care, the Canada child benefit, the dental plan, the pharmacare plan and the disability benefit. These are pieces that really resonated with me, to add to those national plans I talked about. It made me feel as though the principles behind what we were doing as a government, these good Canadian values, were aligned with the whole point of what equity and inclusion are. When I see parents struggling to afford child care, someone with a disability struggling, a child arriving at school hungry or a person who cannot get a certain prescription, I see that building these types of programs is about equity. It is about removing barriers so people have the opportunity to reach their full potential without encountering those types of barriers that are so challenging. Inclusion means ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to participate fully in our communities, workplaces and our country. It means that a parent has a better chance of accepting a job offer, because they can get to work because there are affordable opportunities for child care. My entire life in politics has been about taking items such as a budget and looking for ways to make sure opportunities are there for Canadians. I often think about being 19 years old, standing in front of the House of Commons, looking at this institution and imagining that one day I could serve as a member of Parliament. I think about being 15 years old and figuring out that someone could pick up the phone, engage with their representative and get some change done. I think about the young people I grew up with and their missed opportunities. Those experiences shaped my entire perspective on what public service meant. They taught me that a person’s circumstance should never define their potential. It taught me that the government can actually make a meaningful difference in the lives of people. Governments can create opportunity for people who might otherwise be left behind. The experiences reinforce my beliefs that a person’s income, disability or postal code should never determine or limit their future, and that is what equity and inclusion mean to me. This is where the opportunities come through a budget. I believe that a budget should be about seeing more than just a financial commitment or trajectory. I see an opportunity to build a country where more people have a chance to succeed, where families have the support they need, where children can realize their potential and where no one is left behind because of the circumstances they were born into. This is the Canada I believe in, and this is what has brought me here today. I believe that this budget would provide an opportunity to remove barriers, set people up for success and allow people to reach their full potential. That is why I am a Liberal, that is why I support this budget, and that is why I support the government.

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques

Bloc Québécois
“This bill stops the government from reviewing pesticides every 15 years. Over 70% of people in Quebec oppose bringing back pesticides that were banned for being dangerous to people and the environment. I want the member to say if he really thinks stopping these safety checks protects science, public health, and the environment.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I salute my colleague. He raised a rather important point. A budget contains more than just budgetary promises. That is true. Under Bill C-31, the government wants to suspend the re-evaluation of pesticides, which was normally required every 15 years. However, members know that Quebeckers are strongly opposed to the use of pesticides in Quebec. A recent poll shows that over 70% of Quebeckers oppose the government reintroducing pesticides that were banned because they were dangerous to humans and harmful to our environment. I would like our colleague to comment on this today. Does he believe that it is in the interest of science, in the interest of protecting public health and protecting the environment for his government to stop evaluating pesticides and to reintroduce some that were previously banned?

Michael Coteau, Scarborough—Woburn

Liberal
“Questions about the environment are important. No government in Canadian history has done more to protect the environment than ours. A budget must balance many priorities, and that is why I support this bill.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, any question that is about the environment and protecting the spaces around us is a very valid question with a very valid point. If we look at the history of the Liberal Party and the Liberal government with respect to their commitment to the environment, we will not find another political party or government in the history of this country that has done more to protect and embrace the Canadian environment. A budget is really about finding a balance. This budget is about many things, and that is why I support it.

Ben Carr, Winnipeg South Centre

Liberal
“I used to work in public education. I want the member to explain how this budget process can be used to teach people in his riding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague’s speech. As I have talked about many times in the House, I spent well over a decade in the public education system, so his reference to young people was one I appreciated. I am wondering if the member can offer some commentary further to what he gave in his remarks a moment ago about how the budget process and this exercise we undertake here in Parliament can be used as an educational tool for those he represents in his riding.

Michael Coteau, Scarborough—Woburn

Liberal
“Education is the best investment we can make for our families and our country. I visit schools often to talk with students about this bill. I want young people to pay attention to politics and push back against bad decisions made by politicians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his commitment to young people, to families and to education. There is no question that education is the best tool we can use for success and to build a strong Canadian individual and family. That is the best investment, I believe, we can make. I try every single Friday to go to at least one elementary school. Last week I was at a school, and we talked about Bill C-34 and the impact the bill would have on the school. In fact, a high school has invited me to come talk about the bill. That type of engagement, that type of consultation, is important. I always leave the classroom telling students not to let people make decisions on their behalf without their paying attention, because throughout their lifetime, there will be people in rooms such as this, at city halls and in provincial governments, who will be making decisions on their behalf, and their political literacy has to be at such a level where they can figure these things out and challenge the people who are making decisions if they are bad decisions.

Dave Epp, Chatham-Kent—Leamington

Conservative
“The budget has some good things in it, but the government still needs to be careful with its spending. The member has tried to get the government to promise it will stick to its spending limits, but they have not answered. I am asking the member if he thinks the government should stick to those limits in tomorrow's budget.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills North has tried for the last several days to get an indication from the government as to its commitment to its stated goals of relying on fiscal anchors. A number of good things the member spoke to are covered in budget 2025, but it has to be done in the overall context of fiscal responsibility. Due to the lack of responses the House received during question period, I wonder if the member would opine on his view of whether the government should be held to fiscal anchors that it states, and whether they should be carried forward, let us say, even into the budget tomorrow.

Michael Coteau, Scarborough—Woburn

Liberal
“Canada has a good financial rating. Our budgets look ahead and try to balance our spending. In the end, voters will decide if they agree with our approach.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, Canada is in a good position when it comes to its financial rating. We have budgets, so we project what is to come, and we look for ways to balance that. Ultimately, the voters will decide who leads this country. It is our responsibility, as MPs, to hold ourselves accountable by communicating with our community and having people agree or disagree with the approach we have taken.

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this budget bill. It helps us build big projects faster. It sets up a buy-Canadian rule for government spending, invests heavily in our military, and helps businesses sell more goods overseas. It also gives tax breaks to businesses buying new equipment and investing in clean energy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C‑31. The bill contains a number of new measures, and it would also amend several existing laws. Changes will be made to the income tax regulations, the Excise Tax Act, the Air Travellers Security Charge Act, the Income Tax Act and the Global Minimum Tax Act, among others. Today, I want to focus more on the part that will help us build Canada strong and build it faster. As I have often said in my speeches in the House, over the past few years, we have been building less and less and, in some cases, we have been building little or nothing at all. How can we build faster? I often wonder why it is so difficult for a nation as developed, innovative and educated as Canada to build housing, energy infrastructure and other essential assets. We did it before. Just consider the St. Lawrence Seaway. Major construction work was carried out between 1954 and 1959. In barely five years, a 300-kilometre stretch of water became a navigable waterway, which developed into a navigable system connecting the St. Lawrence River to the heart of the Great Lakes, covering more than 2,000 kilometres. I will let that sink in. There is hope. Canada’s new government is building one Canadian economy through major nation-building projects that will connect our regions and create hundreds of thousands of high-paying career jobs in fields ranging from skilled trades to advanced technology. We are moving forward, protecting our sovereignty and diversifying our markets. In my region alone, the greater Quebec City area, important commitments have been made. These include the construction of six icebreakers valued at $11 billion, built by Davie. This project represents 5,000 jobs but, most of all, it represents predictability for the workers and for businesses and suppliers in the greater Quebec City area. My remarks will focus on six aspects of the bill, and I will give a few examples to help everyone grasp the scope of each measure. First, as I mentioned earlier, the bill seeks to fast-track nation-building projects in close partnership with the provinces, territories, indigenous peoples and private investors. For example, consider the creation of the Major Projects Office, which serves as a one-stop shop to speed up the approval and construction of major projects of national interest. Another example is Bill C-5, the one Canadian economy act, which serves as a legislative framework to fast-track projects of national interest, particularly in the energy, transportation and critical minerals sectors. I could also talk about the trade and energy corridors we are developing. Priority is being given to port infrastructure, including in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou, as well as to rail and energy links, to make it easier for Canadian businesses to access international markets. Second, we need to launch the first buy Canadian policy, ensuring that public funds are used to strengthen our supply chains and support local innovation. Let us look at the buy Canadian policy. This is a commitment to leverage federal procurement as a tool to support Canadian businesses, workers and suppliers. I am also thinking about how public funds are invested in infrastructure. This approach is about prioritizing Canadian steel, aluminum and other materials in federally funded projects. Third, we are currently witnessing Canada’s largest defence investment in decades. I am thinking of the launch of the defence industrial strategy to build out our defence sector and increase the competitiveness of our local suppliers. Here are some more examples. Defence spending officially reached 2% of gross domestic product on March 26. We made a concrete commitment to significantly increase investments in the Canadian Armed Forces in order to modernize its equipment and operational capacities. Our approach to defence procurement reflects our desire to strengthen Canadian businesses’ participation in military contracts and supply chains. I spoke here in the House last week about the strategic importance of Bill C-40, which will allow an investment corporation to support companies that want to contribute to the defence sector in any number of ways, whether through loans, guarantees or insurance. We are investing in and supporting the modernization of our Canadian Armed Forces while developing a stronger Canadian defence industry and creating good jobs, all with a view to strengthening our sovereignty. Fourth, we must seize new opportunities in a changing world by launching a trade diversification strategy that will double our overseas exports within a decade. For instance, take our target of doubling exports to Europe and markets other than our neighbour to the south over the next 10 years. This represents about $300 billion in new trade opportunities. Over 20 new trade agreements have been signed in the past year, opening up markets for Canadian producers and manufacturers. We are also creating the strategic exports office, which was announced this year, to support Canadian businesses in the aerospace, defence, energy and infrastructure sectors. Fifth, we must stimulate growth and innovation by lowering investment costs for Canadian businesses through a new productivity superdeduction. The benefits are estimated at more than $9 billion per year. Canada has the most favourable tax system in the G7 for new business investment. Here is a concrete example. Imagine a business that wants to invest in modernizing its production line. It wants to invest in robots to automate its assembly line. For these major purchases and equipment, the business will need cash and will need to take out loans. From now on, that business will be able to deduct its capital cost in the first year. The same goes for Brûlerie Vieux-Limoilou, where I like to get my morning coffee in my riding of Beauport—Limoilou. If this coffee roaster needs to replace a coffee machine, it will be able to write off its purchase. The important thing to understand is that this applies to both large and small businesses. As the October 2026 Monetary Policy Report states, “Rising business investment—bolstered by federal tax incentives such as the Productivity Mega Deduction—and increased adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) support production and labour productivity.” Sixth, we must support a clean economy through Canada’s new climate competitiveness strategy, which involves strengthening industrial carbon pricing, streamlining regulations and introducing tax incentives to attract investments in clean technology. Clean economy investment tax credits provide tax support for eligible investments in clean electricity, clean technology and other decarbonization activities. Fast-tracking clean energy and critical mineral projects will help to develop strategic sectors for the energy transition and improve Canada’s industrial competitiveness. Thanks to Canada’s position as a world leader in clean technology and clean energy, we will be able to create jobs while reducing industrial emissions. Through our climate competitiveness strategy, we want to make Canada a world leader in clean energy and clean technology, while attracting investments, creating jobs and reducing our emissions. The time has come to build our economy bigger and faster than ever, so that Canada can become less dependent on others, more independent and better prepared for the future.

Angelo Iacono, Alfred-Pellan

Liberal
“How does this bill help grow the economy while supporting workers and families?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, how does Bill C-31 fit in with our objective of building a stronger Canadian economy while supporting workers and households?

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“People are worried about the cost of living. We are helping them with tax cuts, money for groceries, help for first-time home buyers, and dental care.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we are indeed at a pivotal moment, a crucial juncture. The cost of living is a major concern for our constituents, and we must be there to help them. That is why we brought in measures such as the tax cut for more than 22 million Canadians, the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, tax incentives for young people buying their first home, and the Canadian dental care plan, which has been an incredible success. It is brought up every time I talk to people in my riding. We are here for our constituents in these difficult times.

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques

Bloc Québécois
“I want the member to explain how we have economic control when our major projects are owned by foreign companies. For example, LNG Canada is fully funded and owned by companies from other countries. Those owners will make decisions for their own interests, not for Quebec or Canada.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to clarify these economic sovereignty concepts for us. The government wants to propose major projects. I just mentioned LNG Canada as an example. This project is owned by foreign interests, including Shell, in the United Kingdom, Petronas, in Malaysia, PetroChina, in China, Mitsubishi, in Japan and Kogas, in South Korea. It is wholly financed by foreign capital. I would therefore like my colleague to clarify how we can be masters in our own home, as he proposes, and strengthen our economic sovereignty, when the major projects of national interest that we are building are owned by foreign interests. The decisions that these companies make will be based not on our interests, but on theirs, which are not the interests of people here, in Quebec or in Canada. Considering my colleague’s expertise in investment and his professional experience in the financial field, can he shed some light on this issue, in the public interest?

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“Canada's economic independence matters, especially with American tariffs threatening us. We are protecting it by supporting local businesses. We back the Churchill Falls power project and invested $11 billion in the Davie shipyard, which helps over 600 local suppliers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right: Canada’s economic sovereignty is important. Everyone knows what is happening with our neighbours to the south when it comes to the tariffs we are facing. We are supporting our businesses. As for Quebec, my colleague knows full well how we support the Churchill Falls project, which will double electricity production. These are concrete actions. I also spoke earlier about Davie in Lévis, not far from his riding. That is an $11‑billion investment in our region. I remember that when I visited the Davie shipyard, there was talk of creating predictability for more than 600 suppliers within the region alone. When we talk about economic sovereignty, helping SMEs and making decisions about the direction we want to take our economy, that is how we do it: by supporting our local SMEs.

Ted Falk, Provencher

Conservative
“This bill lets a minister ban companies from military contracts for no reason and with no way to appeal. It also lets the minister give out contracts with no competition or accountability. I want to know why the government is ending fairness and transparency in this process.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the minister who would be responsible for the Defence Investment Agency. The minister would be able, for no reason, to disqualify a company for procurement purposes without explanation or justification and with no avenue for appeal. The minister would also have the ability to sole-source contracts without any accountability. Does the member have a good understanding of why the Liberals have abandoned basic fairness in tendering? Why have they chosen to not be transparent in the process?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 162

  1. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  2. Oral Questions Taxation 4 statements
  3. Oral Questions Publics Services and Procurement 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Finance 11 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions International Trade 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions Major Projects Office 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions Emergency Management 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Finance 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Housing 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Major Projects Office 14 statements
  17. Oral Questions Public Services and Procurement 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 4 statements
  19. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 4 statements
  20. Private Members' Business Wartime Service Recognition Act 12 statements
  21. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 31 statements
  22. Government Orders Medical Assistance in Dying Safeguards Act 177 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements