Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 · Report stage · now at report stage in the House Where it stands →
What Bill C-31 would do
This budget implementation bill would change federal tax laws by delivering automatic benefits to lower-income individuals and adjusting business, excise, and international minimum tax rules. It would also ban most non-compete clauses under the Canada Labour Code and establish the Defence Investment Agency for military procurement. Additionally, the bill would transfer authority over air travel complaints to the Minister of Transport and make various other administrative changes across government.
“The government is putting money into Crown corporations to hide how it is spent. We need to show taxpayers they are getting a fair deal.”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems that what the government wants to do is avoid transparency by putting all of this money, as the PBO mentioned, into Crown corporations. It is very important that we demonstrate for Canadians that taxpayers are getting a fair deal.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it seems that what the government wants to do is avoid transparency by putting all of this money, as the PBO mentioned, into Crown corporations. It is very important that we demonstrate for Canadians that taxpayers are getting a fair deal.
“The Liberals created two classes of seniors by raising pensions only for people 75 and older, and not for those 65 to 74. What does my colleague think about this?”
“Mr. Speaker, what does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals have created two classes of seniors: those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over? The older group’s OAS went up, but the younger group’s did not.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, what does my colleague think of the fact that the Liberals have created two classes of seniors: those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over? The older group’s OAS went up, but the younger group’s did not.
“I am very worried about seniors who cannot afford basic needs. Many seniors in my riding are struggling to buy food and have to use food banks.”
“Mr. Speaker, with the interpretation, it did not seem like there was much of a question there, but I appreciate the question. As always, I am very concerned about the situation facing our seniors, especially with affordability issues. I hear so many in my riding say they are challenged just to put food on their own table and are using food banks. It is a shame.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, with the interpretation, it did not seem like there was much of a question there, but I appreciate the question. As always, I am very concerned about the situation facing our seniors, especially with affordability issues. I hear so many in my riding say they are challenged just to put food on their own table and are using food banks. It is a shame.
“This bill gives businesses a big tax deduction so they can get more money to invest. The Bank of Canada says it helps, especially when our trade with the United States is uncertain. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whose speech I enjoyed a great deal. The recent monetary policy report clearly shows that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in his analyses, uses the mega deduction provided in the bill as an example. The mega deduction will give businesses greater access to capital and enable them to make additional investments at a time of uncertainty in our relationship with our neighbours to the south. This mega deduction is worth highlighting; it is a Canadian monetary policy with a significant impact on our businesses and on investment. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whose speech I enjoyed a great deal. The recent monetary policy report clearly shows that the Governor of the Bank of Canada, in his analyses, uses the mega deduction provided in the bill as an example. The mega deduction will give businesses greater access to capital and enable them to make additional investments at a time of uncertainty in our relationship with our neighbours to the south. This mega deduction is worth highlighting; it is a Canadian monetary policy with a significant impact on our businesses and on investment. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that.
“This bill leaves out money for provincial health care. The federal government used to pay half of health care costs, but now it only pays 22%. We asked to guarantee a 6% yearly increase, but the bill does nothing. Next year that increase could drop to 3%, which would be a disaster for our struggling health care system. I want to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on an important measure that is missing from Bill C-31: health transfers. Let us recall that the federal government once covered 50% of health care costs. Today, its share has fallen to 22%. With Bill C-31, we had asked to lock in a 6% health transfer escalator, but nothing has been done. Consequently, next year, that figure could fall to 3%. Our health care system is already struggling. If it were to fall to 3%, it would be catastrophic. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on an important measure that is missing from Bill C-31: health transfers. Let us recall that the federal government once covered 50% of health care costs. Today, its share has fallen to 22%. With Bill C-31, we had asked to lock in a 6% health transfer escalator, but nothing has been done. Consequently, next year, that figure could fall to 3%. Our health care system is already struggling. If it were to fall to 3%, it would be catastrophic. What are my colleague’s thoughts on that?
“The government collected $130 billion more in taxes in 2025 than in 2020, and Canadians got nothing for it. I want my colleague to share what the government could do instead of raising taxes.”
“Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague’s speech. Further to the last question, I will say that the government brought in $130 billion more in tax revenue in 2025 than it did in 2020. When I look at what Canadians got for that $130 billion in extra taxes being taken in, the answer is “nothing”. There is absolutely nothing that Canadians got any benefit from other than paying higher taxes. I am wondering if my colleague could think of something that the government could be doing differently rather than taxing Canadians to the tune of an extra $130 billion.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague’s speech. Further to the last question, I will say that the government brought in $130 billion more in tax revenue in 2025 than it did in 2020. When I look at what Canadians got for that $130 billion in extra taxes being taken in, the answer is “nothing”. There is absolutely nothing that Canadians got any benefit from other than paying higher taxes. I am wondering if my colleague could think of something that the government could be doing differently rather than taxing Canadians to the tune of an extra $130 billion.
“I oppose this budget bill. It creates a new defence agency that makes no sense and lets a minister buy company stocks and hand out contracts without competition. This causes major conflicts of interest. The government should be fixing military supply problems, not spending tax dollars on insider deals and growing the bureaucracy.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces serving at Garrison Petawawa to speak to Bill C-31, the Liberals’ omnibus budget legislation. This bill would establish the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone agency. Now, for Canadians following at home, this is a different bill than Bill C-40, which turns the Defence Investment Agency from a stand-alone agency into a Crown corporation. If Bill C-40 passes, then the entire section of Bill C-31 on the Defence Production Act would be repealed. If this seems confusing to Canadians, it is just because the Liberal government is making things up as it goes along. The Prime Minister campaigned on a promise to build at a pace not seen since World War II. Since the election, it has been a non-stop parade of announcements to create the appearance of action. Rather than undertaking the hard work to reform how the government procures anything, the Prime Minister took the easy path and announced a new bureaucracy. He convinced his personal friend to lead this new bureaucracy and then made his friend the highest-paid government worker in the country. Now, when the Prime Minister’s friend got started, he discovered how hamstrung he was by the government’s broken procurement system, so the Liberals cooked up the legislation we are debating today to create a stand-alone agency. When the Prime Minister’s buddy learned how, even as a stand-alone agency, he would still be mired in the Liberals broken procurement system, he threatened to quit. Desperately, the Liberals scrambled for a solution. Having a close personal friend of the Prime Minister quit after one year would call into question the competency of the Prime Minister. Having built his entire brand around being the competent technocrat, the Liberal Party’s greatest fear is that Canadians will come to see the Prime Minister as just another finance bro pushing a self-interest investment scheme. Canadians were hoping for a Winston Churchill. They got the wolf of Wall Street instead, and only prime minister Brookfield can turn defence procurement legislation into an investment portfolio. This legislation would allow the designated minister to issue sole-sourced contracts. It would allow the minister to purchase stock in companies. It would allow the minister to issue sole-source contracts to companies he bought stock in. When the government becomes the owner, the regulator and the customer, it goes beyond conflicts of interest. It is a conflict of purpose. Conflicts of purpose are the reason our defence procurement system is so broken under Liberal rule. The defence minister’s purpose is to equip the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment, the weapons and the ammunition they need to train and fight. The procurement minister’s purpose is to get the best value for taxpayers. The industry minister’s purpose is to divert the contracts to Liberal ridings. During the debate on Bill C-40, the Liberal members were literally bragging about how much money was going to their ridings. What these members always forget is that this is where the tax dollars came from in the first place. This bill and Bill C-40 would combine the worst aspects of Liberal defence procurement into one unaccountable Crown corporation. We have already seen how the Liberal government operates. Last March the government announced it had issued a sole-source contract for a concrete slab in Canso, Nova Scotia. The so-called spaceport contract is worth $200 million. Worst of all, the government backdated the lease, meaning we paid rent for a full year before even deciding to lease the slab. No rockets were ever retroactively launched. The taxpayers received no value whatsoever. That cannot be explained away. After the Liberals issued the press release announcing the sweetheart deal, the company’s stocks surged. The largest shareholder of the so-called spaceport sold some of his stock and then used government cash to exercise his stock options. He pocketed over $1 million, kept all his shares and taxpayers had to foot the bill. We cannot get more Liberal insider than a spaceport company with a former Liberal premier on the board, while prime minister Brookfield is taking $200 million out of the defence department for his spaceport friends and cutting the CAF’s operational budget by 10%. After Bill C-40 passes, we can expect more of the same with even less accountability. Unfortunately for the Liberals, the Auditor General’s latest report touching on defence procurement drives home the point why nothing in this bill would change defence procurement in Canada. The Auditor General looked at the defence department’s management of ammunition. The report found that ammunition for regular use in training was not aligned with current demand while the strategic stockpile was severely depleted. This passage from the report is very revealing: The Government of Canada, through Public Services and Procurement Canada, had 4 strategic source agreements with Canadian companies to produce ammunition and/or explosives that are available through the Munitions Supply Program. These agreements are to be reviewed and renewed at least every 5 years. We found that 2 of the 4 agreements had expired over 3 years ago. Public Services and Procurement Canada officials told us that a lack of staff contributed to the delay in reviewing and renewing the agreements. The Liberal government has bloated the bureaucracy faster than any Canadian government. It grew at a pace not seen since World War II. In fact, it added more bureaucrats in the last 11 years than had worked for the government during World War II.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces serving at Garrison Petawawa to speak to Bill C-31, the Liberals’ omnibus budget legislation. This bill would establish the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone agency. Now, for Canadians following at home, this is a different bill than Bill C-40, which turns the Defence Investment Agency from a stand-alone agency into a Crown corporation. If Bill C-40 passes, then the entire section of Bill C-31 on the Defence Production Act would be repealed. If this seems confusing to Canadians, it is just because the Liberal government is making things up as it goes along. The Prime Minister campaigned on a promise to build at a pace not seen since World War II. Since the election, it has been a non-stop parade of announcements to create the appearance of action. Rather than undertaking the hard work to reform how the government procures anything, the Prime Minister took the easy path and announced a new bureaucracy. He convinced his personal friend to lead this new bureaucracy and then made his friend the highest-paid government worker in the country. Now, when the Prime Minister’s friend got started, he discovered how hamstrung he was by the government’s broken procurement system, so the Liberals cooked up the legislation we are debating today to create a stand-alone agency. When the Prime Minister’s buddy learned how, even as a stand-alone agency, he would still be mired in the Liberals broken procurement system, he threatened to quit. Desperately, the Liberals scrambled for a solution. Having a close personal friend of the Prime Minister quit after one year would call into question the competency of the Prime Minister. Having built his entire brand around being the competent technocrat, the Liberal Party’s greatest fear is that Canadians will come to see the Prime Minister as just another finance bro pushing a self-interest investment scheme. Canadians were hoping for a Winston Churchill. They got the wolf of Wall Street instead, and only prime minister Brookfield can turn defence procurement legislation into an investment portfolio. This legislation would allow the designated minister to issue sole-sourced contracts. It would allow the minister to purchase stock in companies. It would allow the minister to issue sole-source contracts to companies he bought stock in. When the government becomes the owner, the regulator and the customer, it goes beyond conflicts of interest. It is a conflict of purpose. Conflicts of purpose are the reason our defence procurement system is so broken under Liberal rule. The defence minister’s purpose is to equip the Canadian Armed Forces with the equipment, the weapons and the ammunition they need to train and fight. The procurement minister’s purpose is to get the best value for taxpayers. The industry minister’s purpose is to divert the contracts to Liberal ridings. During the debate on Bill C-40, the Liberal members were literally bragging about how much money was going to their ridings. What these members always forget is that this is where the tax dollars came from in the first place. This bill and Bill C-40 would combine the worst aspects of Liberal defence procurement into one unaccountable Crown corporation. We have already seen how the Liberal government operates. Last March the government announced it had issued a sole-source contract for a concrete slab in Canso, Nova Scotia. The so-called spaceport contract is worth $200 million. Worst of all, the government backdated the lease, meaning we paid rent for a full year before even deciding to lease the slab. No rockets were ever retroactively launched. The taxpayers received no value whatsoever. That cannot be explained away. After the Liberals issued the press release announcing the sweetheart deal, the company’s stocks surged. The largest shareholder of the so-called spaceport sold some of his stock and then used government cash to exercise his stock options. He pocketed over $1 million, kept all his shares and taxpayers had to foot the bill. We cannot get more Liberal insider than a spaceport company with a former Liberal premier on the board, while prime minister Brookfield is taking $200 million out of the defence department for his spaceport friends and cutting the CAF’s operational budget by 10%. After Bill C-40 passes, we can expect more of the same with even less accountability. Unfortunately for the Liberals, the Auditor General’s latest report touching on defence procurement drives home the point why nothing in this bill would change defence procurement in Canada. The Auditor General looked at the defence department’s management of ammunition. The report found that ammunition for regular use in training was not aligned with current demand while the strategic stockpile was severely depleted. This passage from the report is very revealing: The Government of Canada, through Public Services and Procurement Canada, had 4 strategic source agreements with Canadian companies to produce ammunition and/or explosives that are available through the Munitions Supply Program. These agreements are to be reviewed and renewed at least every 5 years. We found that 2 of the 4 agreements had expired over 3 years ago. Public Services and Procurement Canada officials told us that a lack of staff contributed to the delay in reviewing and renewing the agreements. The Liberal government has bloated the bureaucracy faster than any Canadian government. It grew at a pace not seen since World War II. In fact, it added more bureaucrats in the last 11 years than had worked for the government during World War II.
