Debates of May 27th, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think I heard a compliment in there somewhere. I think if all of us listened really hard, we would find it. I will take it.

[Patrick Bonin, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to heartily commend the member for Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, the former minister of environment and heritage, for his public service. I am even taking the unusual liberty of addressing him by name, Steven, this one last time.

He and I have known each other for 25 years. Back then, he was with Greenpeace. He had long hair and a longer beard, but with fewer grey hairs. He enjoyed climbing towers and installing solar panels on premiers' homes. Some people even called him “Jesus of Montreal”.

We crossed paths for years within the Quebec, Canadian and international environmental movements, and at over 30 international climate conferences, or COPs, which he participated in and excelled at, including a number which he attended as environment minister.

Without a doubt, one of his greatest achievements was the Kunming-Montreal agreement on biodiversity, a resounding success that would not have been possible without him. His accomplishments also and obviously include the climate change plan, which may not have been perfect or ambitious enough, but was by far the most ambitious in Canada's history.

We have certainly had our differences when it comes to the best way to serve the environmental cause. We did not always agree on the best strategy to take. We were sometimes critical of one another, but I never doubted his commitment to fighting climate change.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois and myself, I want to wish him all the best going forward. I know that he will continue to advocate for the environment and climate in other forums and other groups, and I would be pleased to be able to work with him again one day. It is unfortunate that he is leaving, but it is a consequence and an illustration of a fundamental divide in Canada.

He was by far the most ambitious environment minister in the history of this country, the one who did the most. He is, without a doubt, the best environment minister this country has ever known. However, it was too much for Canada, and yet despite always being between a rock and a hard place, he truly did everything that he could. For that, I sincerely thank you, Steven.

Now that he might have more free time on his hands this summer, I heard that, if he wants to have a bit of fun and if he wants to send a clear message to the government about climate change, he can always visit the CN tower.

The question that I want to ask him today and the one that is on everyone's mind is this: Will he take this opportunity to give us a sneak peek at what he plans to do next?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely thank my colleague and friend from the Bloc Québécois, the member for Repentigny, for his kind words, on his own behalf and, as I understand it, on behalf of his party.

The political arena can sometimes be very difficult, but it is also a place where we can accomplish great things.

When the United Nations approached us in spring 2022 to ask us to host COP15 in Montreal, a conference that normally takes a year, if not two, to organize, we had only six months to do so. On top of that, we had to work closely with China, which was presiding over the conference, a country with which our diplomatic relations at the time were rather limited. The prime minister at the time, Mr. Trudeau, supported in particular by our former foreign affairs minister and current minister responsible for economic development, did not hesitate to support me in embarking on this adventure with the entire Canadian community, including NGOs, indigenous peoples and many private-sector companies. In the span of two weeks, we succeeded in convincing 196 countries to protect 30% of the planet. Today, this is referred to as the “Paris agreement for nature”, the equivalent of the Paris climate agreement.

People can achieve great things by getting into politics. I urge everyone watching who is wondering whether they should one day take the plunge to go for it, pursue their dreams and do everything they can.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the time he has spent in the House. I certainly will not forget when he was first elected in 2019. I had been here for four years, and I was sitting in the House when he was about to give his first speech. He turned around to me and said, “Do I start talking now?” He was just getting his feet established here, but it did not take him long to become a force to be reckoned with in the House.

I thank him for the time he spent with us and for always pushing the government, for always pushing us individually, to do more and to be more thoughtful when it comes to climate change and what we could do. He always pushed us to do better no matter the circumstances.

The member opened his speech by talking about a young 20-year-old who travelled for the first time to engage in activities around climate change. What would he say today to that young 20-year-old to give him advice?

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government whip for everything he has done for me personally and professionally in the House. He has been an incredible ally, as have many people on both sides of the House.

To answer his question, like I said in French a few moments ago, I would tell this young 25-year-old, wide-eyed Canadian going abroad for the first time to believe in his dreams. If I told him then that one day he would serve as a member of Parliament, that he would even be the minister of environment and climate change, I am not sure that 25-year-old would have believed that. We should believe in our dreams. Sometimes they come true.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this resignation should be of serious concern to all Canadians. It is a huge wake-up call, hopefully for everybody. What our colleague is doing today takes incredible courage. It takes courage to stand up for climate science and environmental protection for future generations when powerful interests inside government are pushing in the opposite direction.

As New Democrats, we have had the opportunity to work across the aisle with our colleague when he was a former minister on a number of important issues, including climate accountability, biodiversity protection and building a fair transition for workers and communities. We may not have always agreed, but he understood that the climate crisis demands action, not delay. The people of Laurier—Sainte-Marie were represented by someone who consistently fought to put the climate crisis and environmental protection on the national agenda. Now the government is weakening emissions caps, backing away from environmental protection and putting fossil fuel expansion ahead of climate leadership while Canadians face devastating fires, floods and extreme weather.

We as New Democrats want to thank the member for his courage and his public service. We want to wish him well and encourage him to keep fighting for climate justice and for the future of our planet. We look forward to continuing to work with him to tackle the climate crisis.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. NDP colleague from Courtenay—Alberni for his comments. He has been an incredible ally and friend in the House. He is right that we have worked closely together on a number of issues. I have always appreciated his dedication to environmental issues and to working together to find solutions, something that is not always necessarily easy in this place. For that I want to thank him.

I want to assure him that the fight is not over. I will continue my battle for a greener, safer planet outside of this great House.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank our colleague and dear friend, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.

I just want to say that it is an honour to work with him here. We have been friends for a long time, of course. It was an honour to work together as MPs in the House. It is a great honour for me. It is true that I will miss him here in Parliament, but I know that we will continue to work together.

I do not know in what fashion, I do not know how, but I know that courage should be respected regardless of views. What we are dealing with is a crisis, but it is heartbreaking in this moment.

I would like to thank the residents of Laurier—Sainte-Marie for their wisdom in electing him as their MP.

The only question I would have would be to give the member one more chance to tell us, of all the extraordinary things he has accomplished in his service to this place, what achievement he is most proud of or would want us to remember.

[Steven Guilbeault, Liberal, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my long-time friend, the leader of the Green Party and member of Parliament for Saanich—Gulf Islands, for her remarks.

We have indeed known each other for a very long time. We worked together before we entered politics, although her political career began much earlier than mine. We have a lot in common, including our birthday, which is coming up soon, for those who are interested.

I want to assure her that I will continue to be there for her and for everyone who wants to work on issues related to fighting climate change and protecting biodiversity. I will never be far away if they need me. I will always be happy to help.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No.2

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mirabel on May 25, 2026, on the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-31, the second budget 2025 implementation act.

The member is of the view that division 17 of Bill C-31, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, should be separated out for a distinct vote at the second and third reading stages.

Standing Order 69.1(1) states:

In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage.

The matter in question specifically concerns paragraph 2 of Standing Order 69.1, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills:

The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation.

The government's objective in division 17 of Bill C-31 is to clear the backlog of air travel complaints by engaging a neutral third-party dispute resolution organization and to enhance both the transparency of the complaints process and the enforcement of passenger rights regulations. I am certain that all members will agree that ensuring a timely resolution of air passenger complaints will better support our tourism industry and address travel costs.

The hon. member for Mirabel has argued that division 17 should be separated out for the purpose of voting as the provisions are “within a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget.”

The member's first two arguments run counter to the objectives of Standing Order 69.1(2), which protects the various targeted or broad measures included in budget documents from being separated from the budget implementation bill.

The question at hand is the linkage between division 17 and budget 2025. In his ruling of November 6, 2018, Speaker Regan noted the complexity in addressing what is not always explicit. He stated:

...establishing such a link is not always obvious.... Sometimes commitments are very specific and targeted, while other times the language may be vaguer. A generally stated policy intention may translate into a series of detailed and technical legislative amendments. Accordingly, a provision announced in a few sentences may require pages of legislative changes to implement.

Page 100 of the 2025 budget document announced that the government was taking action to catalyze investment in our airports and ports so that we could encourage more tourism in Canada and bring down travel costs for Canadians. Further, page 218 of the budget document notes a review of the administration monetary penalties and fines for violations of certain legislation or regulations. This included those that address air passenger rights.

In line with this commitment, the amendment to the Canada Transportation Act increases the maximum administrative penalty payable to corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations. The precise details of the proposal were subsequently announced in the 2026 spring economic update document. In conclusion, I submit that the broad policy objectives were announced in the 2025 budget, as provided for under Standing Order 69.1.

Lastly, in response to the member for Mirabel's intervention, I would like to clarify that Standing Order 69.1 does not contemplate the division of a bill for the purpose of a committee referral. This would be a separate and distinct question for the House to consider.

I thank hon. members for their attention in regard to this particular matter.

Premature Disclosure of a Bill and its Elements to a Third Party

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

Mr. Speaker, I have one other item I would like to address. I am rising to respond to the question of privilege raised by the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères respecting Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2.

The member alleges that information that was made public prior to the introduction of Bill C-31 was a breach of the privileges of members of the House. The member cited a number of precedents in raising the matter. I would like to draw to the attention of members clear rulings from Speakers that categorically state that public consultation by the government with stakeholders on matters of public policy is a normal and expected part of the policy development process.

The question of whether the privileges of members have been violated in the case of the premature divulgation of the contents of a bill turns on when the information is publicly disclosed. Precedents are clear. The period between the publication of the long title of a bill on the Notice Paper and the introduction of the bill in the House is the time frame in which the government, and indeed all members, must ensure that the contents of the bill are not publicly divulged.

On June 8, 2017, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege respecting the premature divulgation of a bill. In this ruling, the Speaker stated:

The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation. Speaker Parent explained on February 21, 2000, at page 3767 of Debates:

Although the members of the House should always be the first ones to examine legislation after it has been introduced and read the first time, this rule must be balanced against the need for the government to consult both experts and the public when developing its legislative proposals.

When ruling on a similar matter on November 1, 2006, Speaker Milliken concluded that the government had not divulged confidential information on the bill, nor the bill itself, but rather had engaged in consultations prior to finalizing the legislation in question. At the same time, he explained at page 4540 of the House of Commons Debates:

The key procedural point...is that once a bill has been placed on notice, it must remain confidential until introduced in the House.

Let us review the facts of the matter before the House. The member states that on April 8, 2026, Air Canada made a public announcement respecting a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints, and on April 28, the Minister of Finance delivered the 2026 spring economic statement in the House, which included this particular proposal. On May 1, the Minister of Transport announced a plan to clear the backlog of air travel complaints. On May 4, the notice of a ways and means motion respecting measures to be included in the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, was tabled in the House, which included a measure respecting a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints. On May 6, the House voted on the ways and means motion, and the government then introduced Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2.

This is consistent with the practice of the government undertaking consultations on matters of policy to finalize a policy proposal in advance of any implementing legislation being put before the House. In fact, on May 4, as stated earlier, the government tabled the notice of ways and means in the House with all measures that were contained in Bill C-31.

The member has not stated that the government made public statements about measures that were on notice and were not before the House. Therefore, according to well-established practice and precedent, the government fully respected the importance of ensuring that the House had first access to the legislative measures contained in the ways and means for the second 2025 budget implementation bill while the implementing bill was on the Notice Paper.

As a result, I submit to the House that the member has not demonstrated a case to substantiate that the House was not the first to see the content of the bill during the notice period, since all of these legislative measures were tabled in the form of a ways and means motion before the bill was placed on the Notice Paper on May 4, 2026.

Finally, the member references public statements about the measure in question that clearly precede the notice of the bill by nearly a month. The second reference the member makes is that the statement he referred to on April 28, 2026, was the spring economic update made by the Minister of Finance in this House, which also precedes the notice period for a bill to implement this measure.

It is clear beyond any reasonable doubt that the government respected practices and precedents by ensuring that the House was the first to have access to this and other measures contained in Bill C-31.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I just wanted to ask for unanimous consent to split my time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed to split the member's time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Yes, it is agreed that time will be split.

The hon. member.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

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.

[John-Paul Danko, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

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.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

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.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry—Soulanges—Huntingdon, QC]

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.

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

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.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

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?

[Jasraj Singh Hallan, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

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.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

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”.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I advise the hon. member that we will come back to say if the amendment is in order.

Questions and comments, the hon. Parliamentary secretary to government House leader.