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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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