Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 · Second reading · now at report stage in the House Where it stands
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.
16 statements
Linked statement
“I am asking everyone here to let me share my speaking time.”
“Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I just wanted to ask for unanimous consent to split my time.”
Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I just wanted to ask for unanimous consent to split my time.
“I do not want this budget bill to pass. The government is spending too much money and running huge deficits. This makes life too expensive for Canadians. Groceries, gas, and homes cost too much, and more people are using food banks. The government has made it too hard to build things like mines and pipelines, and their taxes drive business away. Conservatives would cut taxes, stop high spending, and get big energy and building projects started again.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the fine member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. The costliest budget in Canadian history outside of COVID is back to haunt us once again. This is the biggest deficit outside of COVID that the government dropped on top of Canadians, and it is back. It is back to traumatize them once again. Canadians are visiting food banks at record numbers. Insolvencies are up and Canadians just cannot afford the cost of living. With the crisis that the current Liberal government created, Canadians are being reminded once again of how irresponsible the Liberal government is with Canada’s finances, and the tough position that the Liberal government put Canadians in. In fact, in the current Liberal government, this out-of-touch Prime Minister says that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. By every measure in every Canadian’s life today, that is simply untrue. One just has to go to the grocery store. This Prime Minister admits he does not do his own groceries, so it does not really matter to him. When people go to the grocery store or fill up their gas tank, or just in everyday life, everything has gotten expensive. When we dig deep into why that has happened, we see that ever since the Liberals formed government, everything got worse. The economy got worse. Crime got worse in this country. This did not happen by accident or by some global forces, which the Liberal government always likes to blame. This happened because of changes that the Liberal government itself made. Before the Liberal government, when we had a sound, responsible, strong Conservative government, the middle class was one of the strongest in the entire world. In fact, there used to be articles written back then saying that the American dream had moved to Canada. However, it did not take long for the Liberal government to come in and destroy all that great work, and then the Canadian dream went away. When I was growing up, it was not uncommon to have one household income to run a house. People could afford a house back then, too. These failed Liberal policies, these out-of-control deficits, changing laws to make it easier for repeat offenders to get out, and all the bad economic policies that the Liberals imposed on Canada, which drove out $1 trillion of Canadian investment to the U.S., ended up making Canada more unsafe and more unaffordable than ever before. It was this Liberal Prime Minister who was advising the then prime minister, Justin Trudeau, that the interest rates would be low for a long time, so people should go out and buy and spend as much as they want. After giving that advice, he gave other pieces of advice that completely made Canadians’ lives miserable. That was to make sure that the Liberals spent and racked up deficits on Canadians. In fact, there was the most growth in the deficit and the most spending that ever happened in Canadian history at that time. Canadians’ bank accounts were wiped out and their cabinets were wiped out of food. That is why we now see 2.2 million Canadians going to food banks. The cost of housing has gone up. The cost of food has gone up. The cost of gas has gone up. All of that is because of Liberal taxes and Liberal policies. Canadians are working harder than ever now. In fact, who is using those food banks is becoming more and more concerning. It is now people in households of two income earners who are going into food bank lines, because their incomes are still the same, but everything else has gone up. The cost of housing has gone up because of inflation that the current government created. Rents skyrocketed under the Liberals. There are food taxes, including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. There are all these other things. Driving out investment also drove out competition, which would have helped bring down the cost of food and fuel. Whereas the out-of-touch Liberal government only took off 10¢ per litre, a third of the tax for a third of the year, Conservatives were calling for all fuel taxes to be removed for all of the year. That would have helped save families 25¢ per litre, or $1,200 for the whole year. That would have been real savings. Conservatives would also completely remove this carbon tax in the form of a clean fuel standard that the Liberals implemented. When we look at the economy, $1 trillion has left. Why did it leave? Let us look at some of the projects that could have been built, but were not, under the government because of its radical eco ideology. Nothing is getting built. In fact, the Liberals have put up even more barriers so that nothing could be built in the last 11 years. Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill, ensures nothing can be built in this country, whether it is a pipeline, mine or dam. In fact, when I talked to a mining company in B.C., they said that it takes about 18 years just to get a permit approved, and that is a maybe. What Canadian would want to invest in a project like a mine that may get built in 18 years? Then the Liberals put up Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which does not let our product leave the west coast and go to the Asian markets. They introduced the industrial carbon tax, which makes Canada less competitive, but also makes the cost of the goods that Canadians buy more expensive: food, fuel and any other goods. The Prime Minister says that no one uses steel. He is obviously out of touch. Canadians are using steel; it is in almost everything. When someone is building a home, there is steel in that home. It is also in cars and a lot of other goods. Steel is very much being used, yet the Liberals put an industrial carbon tax on it. That is the hidden tax that, at the end of the day, whoever is buying the goods has to pay. Canadians are paying it. It is bad, reckless Liberal policy. Canadians are stuck with the bill, which is why we see record food bank usage. When we look at Canadian households, one in four now are food-insecure. These are not stats that we heard about before; not until the Liberal government took over. Right now, Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7 because the cost of everything has gone up and, as I said, incomes have not moved at all. In fact, Canadian household debt has reached $2.6 trillion in Q4. For every dollar of disposable income that Canadians earn, they owe approximately $1.77. We are seeing delinquencies go up as well. In the first three months of the year, 1.4 million Canadians have missed a payment on a credit card or mortgage. Canadians are putting essentials, more and more, on their credit cards, and they are either putting everything else back on the shelves because they cannot afford it that week, or making really tough decisions they should not have to make. We need to turn that around. Under a Conservative government, we would get rid of these antidevelopment laws, including Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the industrial carbon tax, so we could get many different projects up and going, including LNG, oil and gas, pipelines, mines and dams. Whatever they are, not only would Canada be more self-reliant, but we would create good jobs and a good economy. That would not only serve Alberta; that would help the unity crisis that the out-of-touch Liberal government has created. In fact, it would help Canada, and it could help the world because we could have our low-carbon energy in places that need it the most around the world. We would also cap government spending and the wasteful spending of the Liberal government. We would bring back the Canada that we all knew, where hard work would earn Canadians a good paycheque with low taxes. With that same paycheque, they should be able to afford groceries and a house in a safe neighbourhood. That is what a Conservative government will do when we come back.”
A repeated line
“Including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard.”
Said 10 times by 9 members since April 28.
Every time it was saidMr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the fine member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. The costliest budget in Canadian history outside of COVID is back to haunt us once again. This is the biggest deficit outside of COVID that the government dropped on top of Canadians, and it is back. It is back to traumatize them once again. Canadians are visiting food banks at record numbers. Insolvencies are up and Canadians just cannot afford the cost of living. With the crisis that the current Liberal government created, Canadians are being reminded once again of how irresponsible the Liberal government is with Canada’s finances, and the tough position that the Liberal government put Canadians in. In fact, in the current Liberal government, this out-of-touch Prime Minister says that affordability is the best it has been in a decade. By every measure in every Canadian’s life today, that is simply untrue. One just has to go to the grocery store. This Prime Minister admits he does not do his own groceries, so it does not really matter to him. When people go to the grocery store or fill up their gas tank, or just in everyday life, everything has gotten expensive. When we dig deep into why that has happened, we see that ever since the Liberals formed government, everything got worse. The economy got worse. Crime got worse in this country. This did not happen by accident or by some global forces, which the Liberal government always likes to blame. This happened because of changes that the Liberal government itself made. Before the Liberal government, when we had a sound, responsible, strong Conservative government, the middle class was one of the strongest in the entire world. In fact, there used to be articles written back then saying that the American dream had moved to Canada. However, it did not take long for the Liberal government to come in and destroy all that great work, and then the Canadian dream went away. When I was growing up, it was not uncommon to have one household income to run a house. People could afford a house back then, too. These failed Liberal policies, these out-of-control deficits, changing laws to make it easier for repeat offenders to get out, and all the bad economic policies that the Liberals imposed on Canada, which drove out $1 trillion of Canadian investment to the U.S., ended up making Canada more unsafe and more unaffordable than ever before. It was this Liberal Prime Minister who was advising the then prime minister, Justin Trudeau, that the interest rates would be low for a long time, so people should go out and buy and spend as much as they want. After giving that advice, he gave other pieces of advice that completely made Canadians’ lives miserable. That was to make sure that the Liberals spent and racked up deficits on Canadians. In fact, there was the most growth in the deficit and the most spending that ever happened in Canadian history at that time. Canadians’ bank accounts were wiped out and their cabinets were wiped out of food. That is why we now see 2.2 million Canadians going to food banks. The cost of housing has gone up. The cost of food has gone up. The cost of gas has gone up. All of that is because of Liberal taxes and Liberal policies. Canadians are working harder than ever now. In fact, who is using those food banks is becoming more and more concerning. It is now people in households of two income earners who are going into food bank lines, because their incomes are still the same, but everything else has gone up. The cost of housing has gone up because of inflation that the current government created. Rents skyrocketed under the Liberals. There are food taxes, including the industrial carbon tax and the clean fuel standard. There are all these other things. Driving out investment also drove out competition, which would have helped bring down the cost of food and fuel. Whereas the out-of-touch Liberal government only took off 10¢ per litre, a third of the tax for a third of the year, Conservatives were calling for all fuel taxes to be removed for all of the year. That would have helped save families 25¢ per litre, or $1,200 for the whole year. That would have been real savings. Conservatives would also completely remove this carbon tax in the form of a clean fuel standard that the Liberals implemented. When we look at the economy, $1 trillion has left. Why did it leave? Let us look at some of the projects that could have been built, but were not, under the government because of its radical eco ideology. Nothing is getting built. In fact, the Liberals have put up even more barriers so that nothing could be built in the last 11 years. Bill C-69, the “no new pipelines” bill, ensures nothing can be built in this country, whether it is a pipeline, mine or dam. In fact, when I talked to a mining company in B.C., they said that it takes about 18 years just to get a permit approved, and that is a maybe. What Canadian would want to invest in a project like a mine that may get built in 18 years? Then the Liberals put up Bill C-48, the tanker ban, which does not let our product leave the west coast and go to the Asian markets. They introduced the industrial carbon tax, which makes Canada less competitive, but also makes the cost of the goods that Canadians buy more expensive: food, fuel and any other goods. The Prime Minister says that no one uses steel. He is obviously out of touch. Canadians are using steel; it is in almost everything. When someone is building a home, there is steel in that home. It is also in cars and a lot of other goods. Steel is very much being used, yet the Liberals put an industrial carbon tax on it. That is the hidden tax that, at the end of the day, whoever is buying the goods has to pay. Canadians are paying it. It is bad, reckless Liberal policy. Canadians are stuck with the bill, which is why we see record food bank usage. When we look at Canadian households, one in four now are food-insecure. These are not stats that we heard about before; not until the Liberal government took over. Right now, Canadian households are the most indebted in the G7 because the cost of everything has gone up and, as I said, incomes have not moved at all. In fact, Canadian household debt has reached $2.6 trillion in Q4. For every dollar of disposable income that Canadians earn, they owe approximately $1.77. We are seeing delinquencies go up as well. In the first three months of the year, 1.4 million Canadians have missed a payment on a credit card or mortgage. Canadians are putting essentials, more and more, on their credit cards, and they are either putting everything else back on the shelves because they cannot afford it that week, or making really tough decisions they should not have to make. We need to turn that around. Under a Conservative government, we would get rid of these antidevelopment laws, including Bill C-69, Bill C-48 and the industrial carbon tax, so we could get many different projects up and going, including LNG, oil and gas, pipelines, mines and dams. Whatever they are, not only would Canada be more self-reliant, but we would create good jobs and a good economy. That would not only serve Alberta; that would help the unity crisis that the out-of-touch Liberal government has created. In fact, it would help Canada, and it could help the world because we could have our low-carbon energy in places that need it the most around the world. We would also cap government spending and the wasteful spending of the Liberal government. We would bring back the Canada that we all knew, where hard work would earn Canadians a good paycheque with low taxes. With that same paycheque, they should be able to afford groceries and a house in a safe neighbourhood. That is what a Conservative government will do when we come back.
“I want the member to admit that Donald Trump's unfair trade taxes hurt Canada's economy and our steel industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, when the member and several others opposite stand up, it is often the same string of hyperbole and cynicism that we hear over and over again. I often think about how sad it would be to live in a world that is that cynical all the time about everything. I grew up in Canada’s steel city, Hamilton. My family worked in the steel industry. Steel is in our blood. I want to give the member opposite the opportunity to acknowledge the harm that Donald Trump and his illegal and unjustified tariff war against Canada have caused to Canada’s economy.”
Question or comment in debate
Signal 28 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 analysisMr. Speaker, when the member and several others opposite stand up, it is often the same string of hyperbole and cynicism that we hear over and over again. I often think about how sad it would be to live in a world that is that cynical all the time about everything. I grew up in Canada’s steel city, Hamilton. My family worked in the steel industry. Steel is in our blood. I want to give the member opposite the opportunity to acknowledge the harm that Donald Trump and his illegal and unjustified tariff war against Canada have caused to Canada’s economy.
“The Prime Minister needs to remove the carbon tax on steel. This government is responsible for the pain Canadians are facing, including high food bank use and a bad permit system. The member should apologize.”
“First of all, Mr. Speaker, the member can tell his Prime Minister that steel is still used around the world. His Prime Minister does not believe anyone even uses steel. Second of all, he can tell his Prime Minister to remove the industrial carbon tax that gets put on that steel. The member, in particular, is completely out of touch. His government is completely out of touch. It is his government that has caused the pain to Canadians. Donald Trump did not impose a carbon tax on Canadians. Donald Trump is not the one who made Canada’s permitting process the second-worst in the entire OECD. Donald Trump is not the one who is sending more and more Canadians to food banks. It is the out-of-touch Liberal government, and he should apologize for that.”
First of all, Mr. Speaker, the member can tell his Prime Minister that steel is still used around the world. His Prime Minister does not believe anyone even uses steel. Second of all, he can tell his Prime Minister to remove the industrial carbon tax that gets put on that steel. The member, in particular, is completely out of touch. His government is completely out of touch. It is his government that has caused the pain to Canadians. Donald Trump did not impose a carbon tax on Canadians. Donald Trump is not the one who made Canada’s permitting process the second-worst in the entire OECD. Donald Trump is not the one who is sending more and more Canadians to food banks. It is the out-of-touch Liberal government, and he should apologize for that.
“This bill changes the tax on alcohol, but it leaves out makers of berry and maple spirits. The government already gave tax breaks to mead and cider makers. Leaving out berry spirit makers hurts local businesses. Does my colleague agree the government is making a mistake?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question for my colleague about the government’s amendments to the Excise Tax Act under Bill C-31. We have noticed that none of those amendments address the inequity and injustice between producers of mead and producers of blueberry spirits. A few years ago, the Bloc Québécois persuaded the government to exempt small local and regional producers from the excise tax so that they could make a living from their production. The government granted an exemption to mead and apple cider producers, but it did not grant the same exemption to producers of berry-based or maple spirits. Does my colleague think that the government is making a mistake? By refusing to exempt producers of berry-based spirits from the excise tax, it is limiting the economic development of our regions.”
Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question for my colleague about the government’s amendments to the Excise Tax Act under Bill C-31. We have noticed that none of those amendments address the inequity and injustice between producers of mead and producers of blueberry spirits. A few years ago, the Bloc Québécois persuaded the government to exempt small local and regional producers from the excise tax so that they could make a living from their production. The government granted an exemption to mead and apple cider producers, but it did not grant the same exemption to producers of berry-based or maple spirits. Does my colleague think that the government is making a mistake? By refusing to exempt producers of berry-based spirits from the excise tax, it is limiting the economic development of our regions.
“I want the government to drop the tax on alcohol. High taxes and rules are forcing restaurants to close, and we need to help them stay open.”
“Mr. Speaker, the translation was a bit behind, so I hope I heard the question right. If the question is about the excise tax, Conservatives, from day one, every single year, put forward motions at the finance committee and I have written letters to the finance minister saying there should be zero tax on these beverages and that should be frozen. At a time when restaurants are closing more than ever before because of high Liberal taxes and the high bureaucracy and regulatory burden the Liberal government has created, we need to do as much as we can, not just for the people producing the beverages but also for the restaurants and the knock-off effects after that. The Liberal government is obsessed with taxing businesses to death. It needs to reverse course so that restaurants are opening more than they are closing in this country.”
Mr. Speaker, the translation was a bit behind, so I hope I heard the question right. If the question is about the excise tax, Conservatives, from day one, every single year, put forward motions at the finance committee and I have written letters to the finance minister saying there should be zero tax on these beverages and that should be frozen. At a time when restaurants are closing more than ever before because of high Liberal taxes and the high bureaucracy and regulatory burden the Liberal government has created, we need to do as much as we can, not just for the people producing the beverages but also for the restaurants and the knock-off effects after that. The Liberal government is obsessed with taxing businesses to death. It needs to reverse course so that restaurants are opening more than they are closing in this country.
“Grocery prices are too high because a few big companies control the market and overcharge people. The NDP wants a public option for food to fix this. I want to know if the member agrees or if he will keep supporting these corporations.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know why grocery prices are so high. It is because there are a couple of grocery chains, including the ones owned by Galen Weston, that are hogging all the space in the market and price-gouging at the checkout. People literally cry when they buy groceries. The member’s party has said nothing about the reality of this situation. New Democrats have a solution, and that is to offer a public option for food. We know that is the real solution. Does my honourable colleague agree, or is he going to keep supporting corporations that are starving people?”
Mr. Speaker, we know why grocery prices are so high. It is because there are a couple of grocery chains, including the ones owned by Galen Weston, that are hogging all the space in the market and price-gouging at the checkout. People literally cry when they buy groceries. The member’s party has said nothing about the reality of this situation. New Democrats have a solution, and that is to offer a public option for food. We know that is the real solution. Does my honourable colleague agree, or is he going to keep supporting corporations that are starving people?
“The Liberals chased away business investment and competition, which makes things cost more. Conservatives would get rid of the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel rules, and any other taxes that make food more expensive.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will have to disagree with the hon. member because we do have solutions. Conservatives have identified the problem. When the Liberals drove out $1 trillion of investment, they also got rid of the competition. Competition in a free market helps to drive costs down. We would eliminate, in their entirety, the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard and any other taxes the Liberals implemented that make the cost of food go up.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I will have to disagree with the hon. member because we do have solutions. Conservatives have identified the problem. When the Liberals drove out $1 trillion of investment, they also got rid of the competition. Competition in a free market helps to drive costs down. We would eliminate, in their entirety, the industrial carbon tax, the clean fuel standard and any other taxes the Liberals implemented that make the cost of food go up.
“I want the House to reject this budget bill. It creates an unaccountable new agency for buying military gear, adds useless bureaucracy, and lets ministers buy gear without open competition. The bill also does nothing to lower the high cost of living, cut fuel taxes, or fix the carbon tax on farmers.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary East for his intervention today and for laying out exactly how bad the Liberals have been, especially when it comes down to things like balancing the budget. Bill C-31 is over 330 pages. We look at this thing and they are doing everything in here. So much of it has nothing to do at all with the budget. I want to speak specifically about division 16, which is on the establishment of the defence investment agency act and amending the Defence Production Act and renaming it the defence and national security production and procurement act. We are talking about substantive changes to the way the Liberals want to do procurement. When we start dealing with major changes like this, like giving a new minister new powers with up to $1 billion of spending without any oversight or accountability tied to it, I think these types of changes need to be legislated through their own bills and debated separately. Because this is part of the budget implementation act, we are not even able to study this at the defence committee. It is going to be done through the finance committee, which has to look at everything else in the budget, not just the changes that are happening to the defence investment and procurement processes that are currently under way with the government. We have been quite critical of how the government has gone and set up the Defence Investment Agency. What we are seeing is more layers of bureaucracy, another level of red tape, and it is just another illusion the Liberals are trying to pull on Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces. They are saying they are doing something when, in actuality, they are doing nothing. They went and hired a CEO. Doug Guzman is a lovely gentleman and I had a chance to meet him, but he comes to the table with no defence experience. He has no procurement background at all. His claim to fame is that he is an investment banker, and a very successful one at that. He used to be the Prime Minister’s colleague at Goldman Sachs back in the day. We have a junior secretary of state who is overseeing the Defence Investment Agency, but again, it does not provide that one point of accountability in ensuring that our parliamentary processes are properly respected. We have a junior minister who is still reporting to another minister who then has to report back up to the Prime Minister. A junior minister, being the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, does not sit at the cabinet table. We also have been critical about the fact that the Defence Investment Agency is about how the government can coerce more jobs out of other companies that are going to want to do defence contracts, but will those jobs ever actually materialize? How much is it going to cost the taxpayer? How much more is the defence equipment we are buying for the Canadian Armed Forces going to cost because they have tied in all these extra things they want to do with the dollars they are spending? The top priority has to be making sure we are getting the right equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. As Conservatives, we have always supported the proud women and men who serve in uniform. We expect them to do dangerous things in the protection of Canada and to work with our allies. We have to make sure every decision we make is a prioritization of the equipment and kit that is required by the Canadian Armed Forces to do that job. We have to be capable. We have to be ready. We have to make sure the stuff we are buying is meeting those operational requirements and that we are interoperable with our allies and neighbours. Let us make sure we are not just creating more red tape, more bureaucracy or more cost in the name of a defence investment agency. We have been down this path before. The Liberals’ track record on this for the past 10 years has been pitiful, as it was under the decade of darkness back in the day under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. What we get is all rhetoric and no action. We need to make sure we are taking action. It has been more than four years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The minister of the day talked about putting Canada on war footing with the defence industry. That never ever materialized. Here we are, four years after the fact, and the only increases in the production of munitions, artillery shells and rockets in this country have all been through contracts with the U.S. armed services, whether that is its army, air force, special services or navy. Those same benefits are not occurring for the Canadian Armed Forces, because the government has not signed any contracts. We can have all the agencies, bureaucracies, red tape and fancy announcements, but it means nothing unless we are actually putting ink to the dotted line and signing contracts with our defence industry that would then create the jobs because we are buying stuff that the Canadian Armed Forces needs to replace the hollowed out air force and army and the rusted out navy we currently have. Just to make that point, the results for 2024-25 for the Department of National Defence show that only 59.6% of the maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. The only reason it is at 60% is that it had to retire the entire fleet of our Kingston-class coastal maritime vessels. Only 51% of the land fleets are sitting at the ready and are well maintained so troops can use them. It is because of the underfunding for the national procurement of the aging fleet and because of the high operational tempo. They have been worn out and have not been properly maintained, because of budget cuts that happened under the Liberals. Over $2.7 billion a year was cut from 2021 to 2025. We know that the aerospace fleet is even worse, with only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces ready to serve and having the proper maintenance, but they are so aged out and so worn out. All we have to do is look at our CF-18s and the debacle with respect to their replacement. Because of the political games the Prime Minister plays with the F-35s, we have to get the F-35s to do the job. What we are seeing in Bill C-31, in division 16, with the establishment of the defence investment agency act, is that it would lock in all the inefficiencies that are already under the Defence Investment Agency. The bill does not name who the designated minister would be. There is no title or styling for that minister; it would just be a designated minister. It could be the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, or the Minister of National Defence, which I think would not be a bad idea, or there may be the creation of another junior minister who would not have the power and strength to go to the cabinet table and make the investments that are required to drive home what is asked for by our forces. The bill would establish more boards, more advisory committees and more people who are going to be hired. We are talking about more patronage and more Liberal insiders. We see, as we read through the bill, in clause 310, more opportunities for sole-sourcing and not running competitive competitions. Although it says in clause 322 that there would be a competitive procurement process, if we look at the exceptions, we see that almost everything could be excepted from it, and the minister would have the power to exclude companies and individuals from participating in the procurement but never say why they were excluded. There would be no transparency. What would the procurement ombudsman say about this lack of competition and the ability to sole-source without proper explanation? If the national security exemption is required, let us make sure we use it. This would create more contracting, more consultants and more Liberal insiders getting rich, which is the type of corruption we have to prevent. That is why we are asking why there are some rather strange definitions in the bill, such as “things”. There would be no guardrails, other than defence services, which is in clause 318, proposed paragraph 16(3)(d): “acquire defence services or professional or commercial services other than defence services”. Why are we even putting that under the defence investment act? The fact there would be no reporting, no performance and no transparency really raises a lot of red flags. Clause 312 would provide for the ability of the minister to procure shares of corporations; replace all members, directors and officers; and then place people in there the minister wants to run those organizations or those companies. It sure sounds a lot like nationalization. We have been down this path before with the Liberal government. It is called the Emergencies Act, and this reeks of having that overreach and that unaccountable style that we saw with the Emergencies Act. To conclude, I move, seconded by the member for Calgary East: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, since the bill fails to address meaningfully the cost of the living crisis which Canadians are facing through measures such as complete fuel tax relief, removing taxes and red tape which drive up housing costs, cutting the industrial carbon tax imposed on farmers and everyone else in the country’s food chain, and eliminating wasteful government spending, all of which have driven up inflation including food price inflation”.”
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Calgary East for his intervention today and for laying out exactly how bad the Liberals have been, especially when it comes down to things like balancing the budget. Bill C-31 is over 330 pages. We look at this thing and they are doing everything in here. So much of it has nothing to do at all with the budget. I want to speak specifically about division 16, which is on the establishment of the defence investment agency act and amending the Defence Production Act and renaming it the defence and national security production and procurement act. We are talking about substantive changes to the way the Liberals want to do procurement. When we start dealing with major changes like this, like giving a new minister new powers with up to $1 billion of spending without any oversight or accountability tied to it, I think these types of changes need to be legislated through their own bills and debated separately. Because this is part of the budget implementation act, we are not even able to study this at the defence committee. It is going to be done through the finance committee, which has to look at everything else in the budget, not just the changes that are happening to the defence investment and procurement processes that are currently under way with the government. We have been quite critical of how the government has gone and set up the Defence Investment Agency. What we are seeing is more layers of bureaucracy, another level of red tape, and it is just another illusion the Liberals are trying to pull on Canadians and the Canadian Armed Forces. They are saying they are doing something when, in actuality, they are doing nothing. They went and hired a CEO. Doug Guzman is a lovely gentleman and I had a chance to meet him, but he comes to the table with no defence experience. He has no procurement background at all. His claim to fame is that he is an investment banker, and a very successful one at that. He used to be the Prime Minister’s colleague at Goldman Sachs back in the day. We have a junior secretary of state who is overseeing the Defence Investment Agency, but again, it does not provide that one point of accountability in ensuring that our parliamentary processes are properly respected. We have a junior minister who is still reporting to another minister who then has to report back up to the Prime Minister. A junior minister, being the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, does not sit at the cabinet table. We also have been critical about the fact that the Defence Investment Agency is about how the government can coerce more jobs out of other companies that are going to want to do defence contracts, but will those jobs ever actually materialize? How much is it going to cost the taxpayer? How much more is the defence equipment we are buying for the Canadian Armed Forces going to cost because they have tied in all these extra things they want to do with the dollars they are spending? The top priority has to be making sure we are getting the right equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. As Conservatives, we have always supported the proud women and men who serve in uniform. We expect them to do dangerous things in the protection of Canada and to work with our allies. We have to make sure every decision we make is a prioritization of the equipment and kit that is required by the Canadian Armed Forces to do that job. We have to be capable. We have to be ready. We have to make sure the stuff we are buying is meeting those operational requirements and that we are interoperable with our allies and neighbours. Let us make sure we are not just creating more red tape, more bureaucracy or more cost in the name of a defence investment agency. We have been down this path before. The Liberals’ track record on this for the past 10 years has been pitiful, as it was under the decade of darkness back in the day under Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin. What we get is all rhetoric and no action. We need to make sure we are taking action. It has been more than four years since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The minister of the day talked about putting Canada on war footing with the defence industry. That never ever materialized. Here we are, four years after the fact, and the only increases in the production of munitions, artillery shells and rockets in this country have all been through contracts with the U.S. armed services, whether that is its army, air force, special services or navy. Those same benefits are not occurring for the Canadian Armed Forces, because the government has not signed any contracts. We can have all the agencies, bureaucracies, red tape and fancy announcements, but it means nothing unless we are actually putting ink to the dotted line and signing contracts with our defence industry that would then create the jobs because we are buying stuff that the Canadian Armed Forces needs to replace the hollowed out air force and army and the rusted out navy we currently have. Just to make that point, the results for 2024-25 for the Department of National Defence show that only 59.6% of the maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. The only reason it is at 60% is that it had to retire the entire fleet of our Kingston-class coastal maritime vessels. Only 51% of the land fleets are sitting at the ready and are well maintained so troops can use them. It is because of the underfunding for the national procurement of the aging fleet and because of the high operational tempo. They have been worn out and have not been properly maintained, because of budget cuts that happened under the Liberals. Over $2.7 billion a year was cut from 2021 to 2025. We know that the aerospace fleet is even worse, with only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces ready to serve and having the proper maintenance, but they are so aged out and so worn out. All we have to do is look at our CF-18s and the debacle with respect to their replacement. Because of the political games the Prime Minister plays with the F-35s, we have to get the F-35s to do the job. What we are seeing in Bill C-31, in division 16, with the establishment of the defence investment agency act, is that it would lock in all the inefficiencies that are already under the Defence Investment Agency. The bill does not name who the designated minister would be. There is no title or styling for that minister; it would just be a designated minister. It could be the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant, or the Minister of National Defence, which I think would not be a bad idea, or there may be the creation of another junior minister who would not have the power and strength to go to the cabinet table and make the investments that are required to drive home what is asked for by our forces. The bill would establish more boards, more advisory committees and more people who are going to be hired. We are talking about more patronage and more Liberal insiders. We see, as we read through the bill, in clause 310, more opportunities for sole-sourcing and not running competitive competitions. Although it says in clause 322 that there would be a competitive procurement process, if we look at the exceptions, we see that almost everything could be excepted from it, and the minister would have the power to exclude companies and individuals from participating in the procurement but never say why they were excluded. There would be no transparency. What would the procurement ombudsman say about this lack of competition and the ability to sole-source without proper explanation? If the national security exemption is required, let us make sure we use it. This would create more contracting, more consultants and more Liberal insiders getting rich, which is the type of corruption we have to prevent. That is why we are asking why there are some rather strange definitions in the bill, such as “things”. There would be no guardrails, other than defence services, which is in clause 318, proposed paragraph 16(3)(d): “acquire defence services or professional or commercial services other than defence services”. Why are we even putting that under the defence investment act? The fact there would be no reporting, no performance and no transparency really raises a lot of red flags. Clause 312 would provide for the ability of the minister to procure shares of corporations; replace all members, directors and officers; and then place people in there the minister wants to run those organizations or those companies. It sure sounds a lot like nationalization. We have been down this path before with the Liberal government. It is called the Emergencies Act, and this reeks of having that overreach and that unaccountable style that we saw with the Emergencies Act. To conclude, I move, seconded by the member for Calgary East: That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following: “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, since the bill fails to address meaningfully the cost of the living crisis which Canadians are facing through measures such as complete fuel tax relief, removing taxes and red tape which drive up housing costs, cutting the industrial carbon tax imposed on farmers and everyone else in the country’s food chain, and eliminating wasteful government spending, all of which have driven up inflation including food price inflation”.
“When the Conservatives were in power, they spent under one percent of our GDP on the military. Our government spent two percent last year. We are giving our troops better pay and equipment. Does the member regret how little his party spent?”
“Madam Speaker, I am sure Canadians would find it interesting to hear the Conservatives actually make the type of statements that were just made in regard to military expenditures. The member opposite was the parliamentary secretary for defence at the time when we invested just under 1% of Canada’s GDP towards defence, towards our military. We would have to go back generations to realize the type of commitment that the Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, has made. Not only did he say 2% of GDP, but we achieved 2% of the GDP last year. We can talk about tendering and providing the equipment that is necessary and about supporting our men and women in the forces in terms of pay increases. In a very real and tangible way, the current government has been there for our Canadian forces. Does the member have any regrets that the Stephen Harper regime could give only 1% of the GDP?”
Madam Speaker, I am sure Canadians would find it interesting to hear the Conservatives actually make the type of statements that were just made in regard to military expenditures. The member opposite was the parliamentary secretary for defence at the time when we invested just under 1% of Canada’s GDP towards defence, towards our military. We would have to go back generations to realize the type of commitment that the Prime Minister, who was elected just over a year ago, has made. Not only did he say 2% of GDP, but we achieved 2% of the GDP last year. We can talk about tendering and providing the equipment that is necessary and about supporting our men and women in the forces in terms of pay increases. In a very real and tangible way, the current government has been there for our Canadian forces. Does the member have any regrets that the Stephen Harper regime could give only 1% of the GDP?
“The Liberals use tricky math to pretend they spend more on defense. They count non-military spending, like the Coast Guard. They also gave troops a pay raise, but then took that money back by raising rent and other costs.”
“Madam Speaker, the one thing the member for Winnipeg North never talks about is the creative accounting that the Liberals did to get the 2%. They added these in, which have never been added in before, until 2017, and then they added in the big numbers last year: veterans pensions; the Canadian Coast Guard’s entire budget, even though it is not a defensive organization nor does it have the ability to be a defensive organization; and Transport Canada airplanes. The pay raise the Liberals gave was long overdue, yet today there are still forces members who have not received the benefits or the bonuses for staying on as members, especially for those who serve in the Canadian reserves. The army reserves have not had those benefits yet at all. The Liberals can sit here and talk the game, but we know that, even with the increases in salaries, they have clawed them back by increasing rents on our troops. They have increased the living differentials, especially for the people who are now deployed overseas in Latvia. Their take-home pay has dropped since the so-called raise, because the Liberals are clawing it back through other deductions. If we had used the same math when we were government, our spending would have been well over 1.5%.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, the one thing the member for Winnipeg North never talks about is the creative accounting that the Liberals did to get the 2%. They added these in, which have never been added in before, until 2017, and then they added in the big numbers last year: veterans pensions; the Canadian Coast Guard’s entire budget, even though it is not a defensive organization nor does it have the ability to be a defensive organization; and Transport Canada airplanes. The pay raise the Liberals gave was long overdue, yet today there are still forces members who have not received the benefits or the bonuses for staying on as members, especially for those who serve in the Canadian reserves. The army reserves have not had those benefits yet at all. The Liberals can sit here and talk the game, but we know that, even with the increases in salaries, they have clawed them back by increasing rents on our troops. They have increased the living differentials, especially for the people who are now deployed overseas in Latvia. Their take-home pay has dropped since the so-called raise, because the Liberals are clawing it back through other deductions. If we had used the same math when we were government, our spending would have been well over 1.5%.
“This bill gives the government more power and makes it less open. It limits who can complain about how the government buys things. I want to know if my colleague really thinks this is good for government transparency.”
“Madam Speaker, this bill is more than 300 pages long and contains many questionable amendments and provisions. Among other things, there are measures that expand the government’s powers and reduce transparency. There are measures that limit who can file a complaint with the procurement ombudsman and what types of complaints the ombudsman can review. Given that procurement, especially military procurement, is set to become increasingly important, does my colleague welcome this type of measure from a transparency perspective?”
Madam Speaker, this bill is more than 300 pages long and contains many questionable amendments and provisions. Among other things, there are measures that expand the government’s powers and reduce transparency. There are measures that limit who can file a complaint with the procurement ombudsman and what types of complaints the ombudsman can review. Given that procurement, especially military procurement, is set to become increasingly important, does my colleague welcome this type of measure from a transparency perspective?
“The government has failed to properly equip the Canadian military. It took them ten years to buy new handguns. Troops in Ottawa are giving up their gear and body armour so soldiers in Latvia can use it. New recruits do not even have enough uniforms or beds.”
“Mr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that if we look at actual things the Liberals have bought for our troops, we see that they have not resulted in increased lethality or kinetic capability within the Canadian Armed Forces. It took the Liberals over 10 years just to replace the sidearms for our forces. Today, members of the Canadian Armed Forces in Ottawa, in the national capital region, have been asked to turn in their rucksacks, sleeping bags, frag vests and body armour because there is not enough to be sent abroad for the people who are deployed in Latvia, where there could be a hot conflict in short order. We know that the people going through basic training right now do not even have enough uniforms, and there are not enough beds. This is a failure of the government to recognize what we need to keep our troops healthy, as well as to make sure that our Canadian Forces has the equipment to deal with the conflicts of today and tomorrow.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 43 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMr. Speaker, I can tell my colleague that if we look at actual things the Liberals have bought for our troops, we see that they have not resulted in increased lethality or kinetic capability within the Canadian Armed Forces. It took the Liberals over 10 years just to replace the sidearms for our forces. Today, members of the Canadian Armed Forces in Ottawa, in the national capital region, have been asked to turn in their rucksacks, sleeping bags, frag vests and body armour because there is not enough to be sent abroad for the people who are deployed in Latvia, where there could be a hot conflict in short order. We know that the people going through basic training right now do not even have enough uniforms, and there are not enough beds. This is a failure of the government to recognize what we need to keep our troops healthy, as well as to make sure that our Canadian Forces has the equipment to deal with the conflicts of today and tomorrow.
“I want to know what time Private Members' Business will start today, since our schedule was changed.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, today’s schedule has been disrupted, albeit in a positive way, by the arrival of the Olympic and Paralympic athletes we welcomed earlier. In light of that, I would like to ask you to confirm what time the consideration of Private Members’ Business will begin.”
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you know, today’s schedule has been disrupted, albeit in a positive way, by the arrival of the Olympic and Paralympic athletes we welcomed earlier. In light of that, I would like to ask you to confirm what time the consideration of Private Members’ Business will begin.
“The government keeps changing its mind and delaying the purchase of the F-35 fighter jets. When are we actually going to spend the money?”
“Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague was at one point a visitor to the public accounts committee when some of the military generals were there. I specifically asked this question then, and I am wondering if he can comment about it. The Liberals said they want the F-35, but it has changed multiple times, and now they are delaying again. If the procurement process is so bad that it is going to take 15 years, when are we expecting to actually spend the money?”
Madam Speaker, I know that my hon. colleague was at one point a visitor to the public accounts committee when some of the military generals were there. I specifically asked this question then, and I am wondering if he can comment about it. The Liberals said they want the F-35, but it has changed multiple times, and now they are delaying again. If the procurement process is so bad that it is going to take 15 years, when are we expecting to actually spend the money?
“Justin Trudeau promised he would not buy the F-35 fighter jet. The jet won every test on cost and quality, but the Prime Minister is still playing politics with it. We need this jet to protect Canada and work with our allies.”
“Madam Speaker, as my colleague from Yellowhead knows, Justin Trudeau said he would never buy the F-35. He then ran a competition, and they ran it again. Guess what. The F-35 beat all the other fighter jets every single time, on cost, lethality, survivability and interoperability. The Prime Minister is now playing politics with a jet we need in order to protect Canada and to work with our allies.”
Reply to a debate question
Respect 61 of 100
This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The Prime Minister is now playing politics”.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, as my colleague from Yellowhead knows, Justin Trudeau said he would never buy the F-35. He then ran a competition, and they ran it again. Guess what. The F-35 beat all the other fighter jets every single time, on cost, lethality, survivability and interoperability. The Prime Minister is now playing politics with a jet we need in order to protect Canada and to work with our allies.
