Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 · Second reading · 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

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“I oppose this part of the bill. The government wants to create a new defence agency and buy military equipment, but it does not have a real national security plan. We should not spend this money until we actually define Canada's military needs and threats.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Respect 93 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “the Prime Minister is more focused on building his own defence industry oligarchy”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to conclude my remarks. I was speaking about not having a national security strategy for Canada to back up the government’s Defence Investment Agency and defence industrial strategy. None of this will work without this key foundation. A procurement architecture cannot be designed for a mission that has never been defined or for threats that have not been assessed. We cannot build an agency to deliver capability to our armed forces when we have not decided what capability Canada actually needs. The Minister of National Defence admitted to me in testimony at committee that no consideration of threat assessments, pre-kinetic warfare, grey zone warfare, cognitive operations or PSYOPS is in the defence investment strategy. How could there be? That would require a foundational national security strategy, a strategy the government does not have. Simply put, the government has put the cart before the horse, and Canadians in uniform will pay the price. Indeed, all of Canada will pay the price. This is the exact opposite of creating a self-reliant and sovereign country. The fancy speeches, the hollow announcements and the promises are all illusions. The reality is that it seems as if the Prime Minister is more focused on building his own defence industry oligarchy. As Conservatives, we have always stood proudly with the women and men who serve in uniform. We ask them to do dangerous things. We ask them to stand between Canadians and harm. We send them to protect our sovereignty, to serve our allies and to represent our country at its best. The very least we owe them is the right equipment, honestly procured without corruption, without patronage and without a $1-billion slush fund that answers to no one. Vancouver Island is home to both CFB Comox and CFB Esquimalt. The families there are watching, the veterans there are watching and the serving members are watching. They are all starting to see behind the curtain of illusion, and the illusion is starting to crumble. We will oppose division 16 of this bill, not because we oppose defence investment, but because we refuse to accept the illusion of it in place of reality. Canada deserves better. Our armed forces deserve better. The people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, who live alongside—

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

Liberal
“The Conservatives spent less than 1% of Canada's GDP on the military and closed veterans offices. Our government promised to raise military spending to 2%, and we did it last year. We are investing in our military, better pay, and military industries.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 82 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “I cannot believe the member can actually make those statements and keep a straight face”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe the member can actually make those statements and keep a straight face. Under the Conservative Party, they actually had just below 1% of GDP going to Canada’s military. The current Prime Minister, elected just over a year ago, made a commitment to bring it up to 2% of Canada’s GDP. We accomplished that months after. Before the end of last year, we achieved the 2%. We provided support, financial pay and so forth, investing in the military and building a military industry. That is what this government has done. What did the Conservative government do? It did zip, nothing. In fact, it closed veterans offices. Imagine what—

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“The government says we spend 2% of our economy on national defense, but that is not true. They counted the Coast Guard, which NATO rules do not allow. An independent research group found that Canada only spends 1.6%.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite’s question was ill-informed. The 2% NATO spending that the government constantly boasts about is truly an illusion. Money was shuffled. The Coast Guard, which is not operationally deployable, was accounted for, and that is not within the NATO regulations. In fact, I would like to draw the member opposite’s attention to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the gold and global standard for identifying government and NATO spending, which said that the discrepancy was 0.4%. In other words, Canada has only actually spent, by this gold standard assessment, 1.6%. This is another Liberal illusion, and Canadians need to see that reality. Of note, I will add that Canada was the only country mentioned with such a large discrepancy in our alleged 2% spending. It is shameful.

Burton Bailey, Red Deer

Conservative

Linked statement

“The Prime Minister announced a deal to buy military planes from Saab. I want to know if the government actually signed this deal, or if it is fake.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for his service. Two days ago, to much fanfare at CANSEC, the Prime Minister announced a deal to purchase military aircraft from Saab, which I believe is an affiliate company of Brookfield. Have they actually signed a deal, or is it another Liberal illusion?

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“The Prime Minister is misleading Canadians about a new military deal. The company itself says Canada has not signed a contract or placed an order yet.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 86 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The Prime Minister of Oz made this great announcement”.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, indeed, there was much fanfare and much excitement from industry as this amazing deal was supposedly announced. This is more illusion, as I alluded to throughout my speech. The Prime Minister of Oz made this great announcement. Let me hold back the curtain and show the reality, right from Saab’s press release. On its web page, Saab stated, “Canada has announced that they will enter into detailed discussions and formal negotiations with Saab [to be potentially] the preferred supplier of Canada’s future.... Saab has not signed a contract nor received an order.” That is the reality. Across the way is the illusion, and Canadians are seeing through it.

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

Liberal
“The Conservatives did not support our military when they were in power. They let military spending drop below one percent of our economy and closed nine veterans offices.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Respect 83 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “It is delusional that the member is able to make the statements that he has”.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would reinforce where the Conservative Party is probably at its weakest. The member tried to paint a picture that is just not true. At the end of the day, I would compare our investments in the Canadian Forces to the Conservatives’ when his leader was a member of government for 10 years. They actually dipped just below 1% of Canada’s GDP. It is truly amazing that the member would try to give this false impression, as if the Conservatives actually supported the Canadian Forces, when in fact they cut nine offices from Veterans Affairs. It is delusional that the member is able to make the statements that he has. Why does he not stick straight to the facts?

Jeff Kibble, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford

Conservative
“The previous Conservative government ran good military programs without wasting money. The current government uses misleading numbers, and our military has become weaker under them.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Reasoning 38 of 100

    This statement drew 4 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 2 of them.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I was looking at nothing but the facts, and I hear the frustration in the member opposite’s voice. Clearly, reality is colliding with illusion, and his frustration is building. Let me be clear. With the investments of 1% under the Harper government, they still managed to go to Iraq and Afghanistan, because they had solid, well-founded programs that did not waste money. Right now, we are seeing creative accounting and self-reporting. When the Stockholm Institute reports on actual numbers, we see it is more Liberal illusion, just like their announcements. It is all illusion, and our military is no stronger. In fact, it is weaker under this government’s illusion and failure. I am bringing reality.

Eric Duncan, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry

Conservative
“Canada is now in a recession, and the government's economic plan is failing. The government needs to stop out-of-control spending, balance the budget, remove taxes on gas and new homes, and scrap rules that block resource projects.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise on behalf of the good people of Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry to add my contributions and views based on what I am hearing in my community, the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, as well as Cornwall and Akwesasne, and bring that to the floor of the House to make sure their voices are heard. As we discuss this piece of budget implementation legislation, it is important to acknowledge some of the breaking news today. The unfortunate news that we had from Stats Canada confirmed that under the Prime Minister, just 15 months into office, Canada has entered into a recession. We have now had two quarters of negative economic growth. We can look at the last four quarters, as a matter of fact, and we have had three quarters of negative economic growth. That is showing that despite the speeches, the photo ops and the good intentions that are always mentioned by the Liberals, we are seeing that their plan is failing to resonate when it comes to economic growth and creating jobs. We have seen tens of thousands of jobs lost so far in 2026. Sadly and very frustratingly, we are now entering into a recession, as confirmed by the government’s own Stats Canada agency. Conservatives on this side of the House are going to keep advocating for a change in direction and for getting rid of the anti-development laws that are on the books, like Bill C-69, and some of the caps that have been put in that are prohibiting and inhibiting our natural resources from getting built. Let us remember that it was this Prime Minister who promised to move at unimaginable speeds to get things done. Here we are, seeing that it can take, in cases of getting a mine built, upwards of 25 years to get a mine permitted and built in this country. At the same time, we are seeing the idea or possibility of a pipeline out to the west coast, but we do not know a proponent, a start date, a route or the details. We are years and years away, because the Prime Minister and the Liberal government continue to put those anti-development laws in place. They are trying to weasel through certain exceptions, different side deals and MOUs. At the end of the day, we are seeing, again confirmed, a shrinking economy, not a growing one, despite the vast natural resources we have in this country. When it comes to a change in course, it is not just those anti-development laws; it is the change in our housing policies. Right across this country, we should be removing the GST on all new home builds and encouraging partnerships with every single province to take the HST off, which could provide significant savings, not just for first-time homebuyers but for all new home builds in this country. We need to invigorate and pump-start our housing economy. Again, the rhetoric was that the Liberal government was going to double house building in this country, to about half a million homes per year, which is what its own stats say is needed just to keep up with affordability and demand in the coming years. We are only at half that. As opposed to seeing new housing starts accelerate, we are seeing them, in many cases and over many months, decelerate, not grow. Our Conservative plan will continue to be on the table. We will continue to pressure the government in that regard. When it comes to the high price of gas, what we need to do is go further to provide inflationary and financial relief for Canadians. The Liberals are removing only one-third of the federal taxes for one-third of the year. What we are proposing is to remove all federal taxes, not just the federal excise tax but the seven-cents-a-litre fuel standard, which under the Liberals will be going from seven cents, currently, to 17¢ a litre in the coming years, and also to get rid of the GST that is charged on the price of gas. That could provide real relief of 25¢ a litre for the entire year, allowing Canadians to keep more money in their pockets to help with the rising cost of living. This is yet another contrast and another change the Liberals could make to combat the Liberal recession that we are now in. Of course, it is about the out-of-control spending. I hear, repeatedly, in Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry and other parts of eastern Ontario, particularly Prescott and Russell, where we have a lot of correspondence from, the frustration and the opposition to the $90-billion boondoggle that is Alto high-speed rail. The Liberal government spends $20 billion each and every year on consultants, many of them Liberal insiders who get repeated sole-sourced contracts, at a time when our federal public service has ballooned to higher levels than we had just 10 years ago. There is the $742-million gun grab, which is an absolute waste of law-abiding Canadians’ resources and time. It is costing taxpayers money, and it is not going after the root cause of gun violence in this country, which is illegal and smuggled guns. Taking a law-abiding firearm owner’s firearms away from them when they go up to the Cornwall Handgun Club, for example, is not going to tackle the crisis. The Minister of Public Safety has even admitted in leaked audio that their plan does not work, but there is $742 million that has gone down the drain in wasteful Liberal spending. It continues with the PrescribeIT program, which was $300 million spent on a software program. That was done by Health Canada, and it was supposed to digitize records. After pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the program, the Liberals decided that nobody wanted it and nobody used it. They had to shut it down, all while paying the CEO of that organization over $800,000 per year in an executive salary and bonuses. It is absolutely absurd, and it was a waste of taxpayers’ money, once again. If that is not enough, Conservatives are digging up more wasteful spending by the Liberal government. No wonder we have such a high deficit and debt in this country. The Liberals are spending $200 million over the next 10 years on a gravel pit and concrete pad in rural Nova Scotia for a rocket launch service. The company was nearly bankrupt and almost shut down. It then got an injection of $20 million with a backdated contract retroactive to last year. This infusion of $20 million saw its key investors suddenly cash out with millions of dollars, and we have a gravel pad with a concrete pad on top of it that is costing $20 million per year. The lease of that land, just for the record, was about $15,000 per year. Where is the other $19.99 million a year going? Canadians have a right to know. When we talk about waste and about ways to lower our deficit, there are several key ways.There are the billions of dollars we Conservatives have been mentioning. That would be a common-sense way to get our finances under control. We see the massive deficits that the Liberals have included in their budget documents this year, and they are ongoing for the next few years. The Liberals have no plans to balance the budget. I looked at the numbers and did some rough math. They are looking to add $330 billion more to our national debt in the next five or six years alone. That is on top of the $1.3 trillion or $1.4 trillion already on the debt. These Liberals have added more to our national debt than every other government combined before it. That is how bad it is. I have said this repeatedly in my tenure in public life, and it bears repeating: The easiest thing for government to do in public life is to tell Canadians what it is going to spend money on. That is the easy part. The part that Canadians need to pay attention to, and where we are with this Liberal government, is how it is going to pay for it all. This is what we call a costly credit card budget, because that is exactly what it is doing. It is adding tens of billions of dollars each and every year. In this case, there is $67 billion in the spring statement that was just proposed and, like I said, $330 billion in new debt in the coming year. The thing we need to remember is that, when that goes on the credit card, there are public debt charges, which is the interest to service that debt. As a matter of fact, we spent $54 billion this year just to pay the interest on our national debt. That is not paying it down. It is just paying the interest on that proverbial credit card, and that interest is expected to go up to $59 billion next year. It will then go to $65 billion the year after that, and then on to $71 billion and $76 billion. Finally, in 2030, we will be spending $81 billion per year servicing our national debt. That is not sustainable and not the right way. Canadian households do not do that with their credit card and their home budgets. They expect, as Canadian taxpayers, government to do the same thing. It is ridiculous to see that the new Prime Minister has doubled Justin Trudeau’s deficit. Whether it is the budget implementation act or the Liberals’ efforts here on defence, we are seeing more bureaucracy, more taxes and more ineffective measures. Now that we are in a recession, under the Liberal Prime Minister, it is time to smarten up and change course.

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

Liberal
“Our government has cut taxes to help people with living costs. The Conservatives do not want to spend money on Canada's infrastructure or invest in Canadians. They just claim the country is broken and tell us to get out of the way.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 22 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, there is no surprise at the approach the Conservative Party of Canada is taking. It does not necessarily believe in investing in Canada’s infrastructure. The information that the member talks about focuses on taxes and tax breaks. The government has provided tax breaks for the issue of affordability in several different ways. I will get into that in my comments. I would like to understand why the Conservatives say two things. The first thing they constantly say is that Canada is broken, and the second, which is their default or natural fallback, is to tell us to just get out of the way. Why do the Conservatives not believe in investing in Canadians and investing in Canada?

Eric Duncan, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry

Conservative
“The Liberal government has broken Canada's economy. Canada is now the only G7 country in a recession, even though other countries face the same problems. The government's plan is not working.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
  • A repeated line

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

    Said 104 times by 61 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, when I talk about our economy, I am saying that it is the Liberal government that is broken. Let us make it very clear: We are now in a recession. We have seen negative growth for two quarters in a row, and over the course of the last year, three of those four quarters have seen negative growth. That is the Liberal record. That is the reason we are criticizing the Liberal government and its record. It is clearly not working. Let us be very clear: We are the only G7 country now in a recession. All the other G7 countries are facing the same headwinds with tariffs, gas prices and oil prices. They are facing the exact same circumstances and headwinds, yet they are not in a recession. Canada is the only G7 country in a recession. That is the Liberal Prime Minister’s record. When we criticize, we are criticizing the Liberal government’s record, because as Statistics Canada is showing today, we are going into a recession. Clearly the government’s plan is not working.

Rachael Thomas, Lethbridge

Conservative
“Canada is now in a recession, and we are the only G7 country in one. I blame the Prime Minister's spending for this. It hurts families, seniors, and students. I want my colleague to talk more about how this affects Canadians.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague talked about where Canada is at economically. I would like him to drill down on that further and its impact on Canadians. What I mean is that the Liberal government has spent and spent for over a decade, and today we learned that Canada is now in a recession. It is the only G7 country to enter into that. That is due to the current Prime Minister’s policies. That is more than stats on a page. That impacts Canadians. It impacts families. It impacts seniors. It impacts students. It impacts those who are simply trying to make ends meet. I am curious if my colleague would care to expand on that impact.

Eric Duncan, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry

Conservative
“Canada is in a recession under this government. Food, rent, and housing prices have doubled over the past ten years, and millions of Canadians now rely on food banks. Conservatives want to fix the economy so people can afford food and rent again.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 91 of 100

    Of this reply, 95% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Reasoning 100 of 100

    This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lethbridge has an insightful question, and I thank her for the opportunity to reflect. Today, I am thinking, as we look at the struggles, that the data confirms that Canada is the only G7 country going into a recession. Canada is officially in a recession under the Liberal government. Today, I am thinking of the millions of Canadians who are relying on food banks. Under the government, we have seen food prices double over the course of the last 10 years. We have also seen rent and housing prices double, not just in Cornwall and Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry, but in every part of the country. We are seeing the strain when it comes to housing. We are seeing the strain on our immigration system and the chaos there. We are seeing, when it comes to affordability, things getting worse. The Liberals have a big laundry list of all the things they claim to be doing to help with affordability, but affordability has never been more difficult for families to meet. Whether it is the House of Lazarus in Mountain, the Agapè Centre in Cornwall, or Saint Vincent de Paul in Cornwall or Alexandria, we have many people and organizations stepping up to help thousands of people in need in this country. Our goal, as Conservatives, is to change the trajectory, to get ourselves back out of the recession and have Canadians able to afford rent and food in this country. After 11 years, things have gotten worse, not better, under the Liberal government. That is the fact.

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

Liberal
“Canada has a top credit rating and the money to build a stronger country. I want to know why the Conservatives oppose that.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, Canada has the best credit rating in the G7, arguably in the world, with a AAA rating. We have the opportunity to use our financial space in order to build a stronger Canada. Why does the Conservative Party oppose that?

Eric Duncan, Stormont—Dundas—Glengarry

Conservative
“The government borrows and spends too much money, which causes inflation. Canada's debt is $1.4 trillion now and will reach $1.8 trillion by 2030. This spending makes life, housing, and government services worse.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 97 of 100

    Of this reply, 96% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, deficits and money printing add to inflation, the inflationary fire being set by the Liberal government. We are seeing now our public debt at $1.4 trillion, and it is expected to go to $1.8 trillion by the year 2030. That is using the government’s own summary statement of transactions when it comes to budgetary revenues and expenses. For 11 years, the government has borrowed and spent incredible amounts. We are seeing affordability get worse. We are seeing housing access get worse. We are seeing our immigration and government services getting worse. It leaves a lot—

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

Liberal
“Canada is not broken. Our government cut taxes for the middle class, removed trade barriers between provinces, and is investing in energy and resource projects across the country. We are making new trade deals around the world and spending more money on health care and the military. I want the House to pass this budget bill so we can keep growing the economy.”
  • A repeated line

    “When we talk about building a one Canadian economy?”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, let me give a bit of a sense of this to those who might have been following the debate over the last number of months here in the House of Commons. Let me give a sense of the reality of what has taken place since the last federal election. I think we do need to take a more holistic approach, because the picture that the Conservatives paint every day, whether inside or outside the House, is one that leads to an opinion, which the Conservative leader says all the time, that Canada is broken, when actually nothing could be further from the truth. Looking at the lead-up to the last federal election just over a year ago, we can ask what was on the minds of Canadians back then. People were concerned about Trump, the tariffs, trade and the issue of crime. Those were the top four issues that were raised with me constantly. Health care was also something that was raised. I would like to be able to attempt to deal with those. The issue of affordability really started to gel and come to the surface just prior to the election, when the Prime Minister made the commitment to get rid of the carbon tax. Members will recall that it was the very first initiative that our Prime Minister took. Then we went into an election where, by far, the issue was, as I say, the three Ts: Trump, tariffs and trade. We made a commitment back then to Canadians that, as a government, we would build one Canadian economy. We would look at diversification of our trade. We would look at how we could attract more investment into Canada. Canadians had the opportunity to take a look at the Prime Minister’s background and what it was that the leader of the Liberal Party was proposing during the last federal election. They understood that he had been the Governor of the Bank of Canada, a Stephen Harper appointee. He was not a Liberal appointee. It was Stephen Harper who appointed him to be the Governor of the Bank of Canada. He then went on to be the Governor of the Bank of England. The Prime Minister’s economic credentials are not questionable. He is someone who has been looked at as a source, in many different ways, of providing economic advice, not just here in Canada. Canadians contrasted him to, as I have said before, the leader of the Conservative Party, who is, much like myself to a certain degree, a career politician. That is not to take anything away from career politicians, but I do believe that, at a time when Canadians were looking for someone to take care and provide that sense of security and understanding of the economy, they chose, I would argue, the right person. Never before had the Liberal Party of Canada received as many votes as it did in the last national election. I attribute that in good part to the background of Canada’s Prime Minister. We should take a look at some of the things that have taken place since we first formed government. I already made reference to getting rid of the carbon tax. The government, shortly after the election, brought forward legislation, in particular, Bill C-5, and a commitment to Canadians to reduce the middle-class tax rate, and 22 million Canadians benefited from that tax break. Our population, by the way, is just over 40 million people. We also brought in legislation to bring forward a one Canadian economy. I remember, shortly after the election, how busy the government was in terms of reaching out to and consulting and working with premiers, indigenous leaders, business leaders and union leaders, in whole or in part, to really amplify how important it was that we work collectively, in a collaborative fashion, to build a stronger and healthier Canada that is there for all Canadians, in every way, whether it was of an economic nature, a health care nature or a crime nature. In order to be able to achieve that, we have to have a sense of co-operation. There needs to be collaboration. Many of the responsibilities that I just listed off are joint responsibilities. When we talk about building a one Canadian economy, that means taking down the barriers that would allow for more trade, whether it is merchandise or labour, among the federation. We actually did that. We took down the national barriers. We also continue to encourage, where we can, like-minded provinces and territories to do likewise. We have seen significant progress in that area. There have been significant initiatives taken by provincial jurisdictions in Canada to build upon the principle of a one Canadian economy. I hope that we continue to see barriers being taken down. The Prime Minister also made a commitment to build a stronger Canada by investing in infrastructure and in major projects, again, looking to the different stakeholders in particular provinces and territories, indigenous leaders and others, to identify what those major projects should be. The office is located Alberta, which is one of the driving economic forces in the nation. I was pleased at the decision to locate the Major Projects Office there. When we take a look at the amount of investment that is projected to go through that office, we are talking somewhere in the neighbourhood of $150 billion. Those are investments that are going to be throughout our nation. Every region of Canada will invest because we have a Prime Minister who understands the federal system and understands the benefits of working collaboratively with others to ensure that we have the right projects and that all regions of our nation are going to benefit. We talk about, and we will put into place, Canada being an energy superpower in the world. Members can take a look at the major projects that we are talking about from coast to coast and will see the potential of things like energy and wind power in Atlantic Canada. We can talk about nuclear power in Ontario. We can talk about fossil fuels in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Prairies, where I am from. I have lived many years in all three provinces. I have a personal thing that I love about our Prairies. In B.C., we have LNG. The opportunities are there. They are real. They are tangible. The Prime Minister, the cabinet and all Liberal members of Parliament understand why it is so important that we do not do what the Conservative Party is saying and just get out of the way. To me that would be silly. We recognize that the government has a role, and we have seen that in a very tangible way with these major projects. They are just some of the things that I talk about with regard to energy. We can talk about our resources and mining opportunities in northern Canada. In Saskatchewan, there is potash and copper. In B.C., there is copper. We have a forest industry that we are supporting in whatever way we can today, because we want it to be there for future generations. We understand the true value of the resources that Canada has and the ways we can work through consultation, in particular with indigenous peoples, provinces and territories. When I talk about the idea of building bigger and better, we can do it at the same time as protecting our environment; expanding, where we can, our national parks; and protecting our waterways, all of which are very important to this government. We will do the work that is necessary to ensure that there is sustainable development, because we recognize that is the expectation that Canadians have. We have seen things in this budget and in the budget implementation bill that I would have thought every member of the House would have been in support of. I was disappointed in the collective opposition parties, in terms of their not seeing the benefit of a sovereign wealth fund. They come up with excuses to try to justify their position on it, but they do not realize there are many nations that have sovereign wealth funds. It has been demonstrated that they can work and that they can be effective. This is a wonderful opportunity for the government to allow Canadians to invest. It is a wonderful opportunity for us to see the types of investments that we are going to need in order to get many of the major projects not only off the ground, but completed. This government and this Prime Minister have a very high objective. The bar has been set at a trillion dollars over five years, and we are committed to achieving that and to making sure that we continue to strive to make Canada the strongest economy in the G7, and we are prepared to do the necessary work. We need to realize what has taken place south of our border. It has had an impact; let there be no doubt about it. That is the reason we have the tariff issues. We have supports in place to protect some of our most valuable industries. We will continue to have the backs of the workers who are being most affected by some of the decisions that are being made in the United States today. However, having said that, as the Prime Minister indicated in the last election, we are committed to diversifying our trading opportunities far beyond the Canada-U.S. border. That means taking a look at export opportunities in areas where we have seen trade agreements brought to the floor of the House. There were two, one with Indonesia and one with Northern Ireland and the U.K. That is legislation we have already passed through the House, not to mention the dozen other trade agreements that were signed. We are talking with two great nations that I am a very big fan of, India and the Philippines. The Prime Minister has had communications directly with both the President and the Prime Minister. I am very optimistic that Canada will have trade agreements with the Philippines and India in 2026. Canada is the only nation to have trade arrangements and agreements with all G7 countries. Canada is a trading nation. We make up 0.5% of the population, yet we contribute 2.5% to world trade. We understand the importance of trade and we have been very successful at reaching out. If we talk to the Prime Minister or other ministers, like the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the Minister of International Trade, what we hear when they come back is that everyone wants to do business with Canada. We need to set the stage to allow that to happen. That is why we have a Prime Minister and a government committed to being in Toronto this September, where we are going to have investment, ideas, thoughts and billions in potential out there that we need to secure to help build Canada strong. I can tell members that there is a very strong social component to this government. We are committed to the Canada Health Act. We are committed to supporting people through our social net. Whether it be for seniors, young people or people with disabilities, we are providing those core services that are absolutely essential. We are continuing to support programs such as the OAS, the GIS and the New Horizons program, all of which are for seniors. With respect to health care, whether it is dealing with things such as mental health, home care or providing that financial support, we continue to support it financially in a very big way. No government has given more money toward health care than the current government, and there were no cuts made there. At the end of the day, we need to focus our attention on the way we can continue to see that growth. At the tail end of his speech, the last Conservative speaker talked about the military. I indicated that it is truly amazing that the Conservatives spent at one point just under 1% of the GDP on the military and the Canadian Armed Forces. This government, under this Prime Minister’s leadership, has already hit 2% of the GDP. However, that is not good enough. We are also looking at ways to modernize, generate and support a military industry. Canada already contributes worldwide in that industry area, but there is so much more that we can do. Just earlier this week we had a good example of that. By working collaboratively with our international allies, there is so much more potential. Unlike the Conservative Party of Canada, we will not neglect that area because we see the potential. Equally, we have legislation before us that will enable us to grow. Yes, there will be some bumps as we go forward, but let there be no doubt that every single Liberal member of Parliament is committed to building Canada strong, a Canada that is there for every Canadian, and we will have their backs.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“I do not support the government creating a wealth fund right now. We are running large deficits, so this fund would just be investing borrowed money.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member has well understood the debate about the sovereign wealth fund. I will explain it simply by analogy. If I open a savings account to save my money, that is a good idea. If I have no money, so I open a savings account then take money off the credit card and put it in the savings account, that does not make a lot of sense. The issue is not the existence of the account but whether or not we have something to put into it. The principle of having a sovereign wealth fund is great, but when the government is running massive deficits, its proposal is not for a sovereign wealth fund. It is for a sovereign debt fund. It would be taking out even more money we do not have and then requiring the additional costs and capacity around a fund that would invest borrowed money. There is also a lack of the protections from political interference, and all kinds of other problems. Will the parliamentary secretary recognize the real problem and understand that the Liberals should not have a sovereign debt fund that would land on future generations?

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

Liberal
“I want the Conservatives to change their minds and support our national wealth fund. Other countries borrow money to set up these funds, and this fund will let Canadians invest in our country.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, part of what the member said might actually have been a little encouraging, because he seems to imply that, in principle, he would support a sovereign wealth fund. Well, I can tell the member opposite that there are many countries that actually have a sovereign wealth fund for which borrowed money was used. If the member genuinely supports the principle of a sovereign wealth fund, I would suggest that he flip his position and actually support it. The Conservative Party should change its position and support the sovereign wealth fund, a Canada Strong fund in which Canadians will ultimately be able to invest. I think that there might be some hope for some members of the Conservative caucus.

Doug Eyolfson, Winnipeg West

Liberal
“I want the member to explain how Canadian businesses could survive American tariffs without government help.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we hear the phrase “Government should get out of the way.” Whenever I hear that phrase, I think that someone has been reading a little too much Ayn Rand. I would like to ask the hon. member this: In the face of the punishing tariffs from the United States, what would be happening to Canadian businesses if government got out of the way?

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

Liberal
“Our relationship with the United States is very important, but Canada is an independent country. We will not give in on our arts programs like the Conservatives want. We will take the time and effort to get the best deal possible for Canada.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 34 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Reasoning 25 of 100

    This statement drew 4 conclusions, but gave no reasons for 3 of them.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, whether it is the Prime Minister, the government, or any member of the Liberal caucus, that is something we will not do, because we understand the significance of the Canada-U.S.A. relationship. Billions of dollars cross our borders every day. The relationship between Canada and the United States is well rooted, but there is something that is really important for us to recognize: Canada is a sovereign nation. We are not going to capitulate, as the Conservatives were proposing yesterday, on our arts programs in Canada. We are going to continue to recognize that if it is going to take time, we are prepared not only to take the time but also to put the resources and energy into ensuring that Canada gets the best deal possible. On Trump version one, what we found was there was an abandonment by the Conservative Party. We are not going to do that. We are going to persist at getting that deal.

Connie Cody, Cambridge

Conservative
“This bill lets ministers give government work to their friends without competition. It gives them no real consequences when things go wrong.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the bill would allow ministers to hand out sole-source contracts to insider friends without competition. I am wondering if the member agrees that if there is no clear mechanism to hold ministers accountable when decisions go wrong, this is effectively granting immunity from consequences.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 125

  1. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 26 statements
  2. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  3. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  4. Oral Questions Justice 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  6. Oral Questions Families, Children and Social Development 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Environment 4 statements
  9. Oral Questions The Economy 9 statements
  10. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions National Defence 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  13. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 4 statements
  14. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 6 statements
  16. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  18. Oral Questions Northern Affairs 2 statements
  19. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  21. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 2 statements
  22. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 31 statements
  23. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  24. Oral Questions Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 2 statements
  25. Private Members' Business Private Members' Business 9 statements
  26. Oral Questions Prime Minister of Canada 2 statements