Debates of June 1st, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech.

I know that her province of Saskatchewan obviously has very significant trade ties with our neighbour to the south, the United States. I also know that Saskatchewan was quite pleased to see that an agreement had been reached with China on canola.

The fact remains that, historically speaking, our number one economic partner has been the United States. Right now, this government is doing nothing to solve the problem, or should I say problems, that we are experiencing because of President Trump's extremely hostile economic policies.

I would like my colleague to comment on that. This government behaves as though it were the saviour of the Canadian economy in the face of Donald Trump, but there is nothing in its track record over the past year to suggest that we are on the right track.

I would like to know whether this is as much of a concern in Saskatchewan as it is for us.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, that could be a very short answer if I wanted it to be. The answer is absolutely I am worried. I am worried about the fact that we have a government in power that has created the mess in our economy and then wants all Canadians to believe it has come up with the solutions and is the saviour to the problems it has created.

Yes, I am worried because the government continues to introduce the same failed policies that got us to this place after 11 years. I do not see it changing, and that is deeply concerning.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, every dollar spent on interest is a dollar that cannot be spent on the future. Canadians will pay more than $50 billion this year simply to pay the interest charges on federal debt. That money produces nothing. It creates no jobs, builds no infrastructure and improves no public services.

Could my colleague share her thoughts on the long-term consequences of forcing Canadian families and future generations to carry the cost of today's reckless deficits?

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Madam Speaker, we are already seeing what the devastating effects are for Canadians today. Without a change in policy, without a change in the government continuing to implement its deficit spending and believe that somehow things are going to get better for Canadians, that is concerning. It is just going to continue to repeat itself long into the future if the Liberals do not get control of the deficit and their deficit spending.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to get up today and put a few words on the record about the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves with the government moving time allocation on Bill C-31.

Some of my colleagues today have covered the challenges pretty well. This is a habit we see from the Liberal government relatively frequently. We have members opposite making comments that this is a new Liberal government. Of course, it is not. The vast majority of members of the government benches on that side are certainly people who have been in cabinet and parliamentary secretary roles for a very long time, so the argument that this is a new government in any way, shape or form is a bit fictitious. Nonetheless, the government continues to perpetuate this myth to the Canadian public, which we find very unfortunate.

Similarly unfortunate is the Liberals' inability to control their own spending. The Liberals go on and on about how they are going to create more jobs and how everybody in Canada is going to do better with just one more deficit. One more is going to do it. “I promise,” say the Liberals, that one more deficit will be the one that is going to get Canadians ahead this time and we are going to make it. We have yet to see that reap any real benefits for Canadians after 11 long, tired years of this failed economic strategy.

In fact, more Canadians now are lined up at food banks than at any point in recorded history. That is a shockingly bad statistic and one that these members fail to take accountability for. It is a bit alarming that they seem to think that the few programs they have put forward, some of which are tweaked with this budget implementation act, are going to make any substantial dent in those enormously long lines at every single food bank across the country, many of which are actually running out of food.

We are a bit shocked that the Liberals cannot eat a little slice of humble pie. They cannot find that at a food bank because they are out of food, but if they could make one for themselves and take a little bite, it might be good for the Canadian public to see that for the first time from the tired 11-year-old Liberal government. They might actually come to appreciate the efforts they are undertaking maybe slightly more, because right now they seem to hear from the government that life has never been better. I do not know any constituents in Brandon—Souris who believe that is true.

On top of that, then the Liberals go and blow another $60-billion deficit, or whatever they managed to pitch that down to with the spring economic update. It is shockingly high for a government that committed in the last election to spend less to invest more. What happened to that? I have no idea where that slogan went to die, somewhere in the Liberal backbench. Perhaps the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie took that with him when he walked out with the environmental caucus. I am not sure where that is going, but nonetheless, we are concerned about the spending the government continues to perpetuate.

If that was not bad enough, now we have government members who do not even want to debate their spending or answer questions regarding their spending. The Prime Minister failed to stand up and answer any questions in question period today. It is fair game to question why exactly that is. He also failed to take any questions from the media all weekend long, including today, and particularly on Friday, when it was announced that this country has in fact dived into what is unquestionably meeting the definition of a recession.

The parliamentary secretary to the finance minister often stands up and loudly proclaims the Prime Minister's economic credentials. If he is such an expert, why does he not want to answer questions about the economy? He does not want to answer them from us. If he does not respect Parliament and does not want to answer questions in question period more than once a week because it is too much of a bother for him, okay, but he should answer questions from the media then. The Liberals always profess to have a greater respect for the national press gallery than Conservatives, they claim, and yet it is our leader time and time again taking questions from the media.

I was with him today when he offered a press conference, offering not just critiques of the government, but also our party's proposed path forward to deliver a better economic path for this country that might get us back out of this recession. There was nothing from the Prime Minister, nothing at all. What a shame. There was nothing from the finance minister either. Where is the finance minister? Why is he not answering these questions for the media, if not for the House of Commons?

I would add that I am splitting my time with the esteemed member for Airdrie—Cochrane.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North knows better than that. I know that he does not like what I have to say, because he is a member of that tired, exhausted, spent Liberal team that has been in the front couple of benches for the last 11 years. The Liberals have no new ideas. They have no vision on how to spend smarter to actually get this country into a proper economic footprint.

We are the only country in the G7 that has slipped into a recession. That is not a proud legacy for the member for Winnipeg North, and I feel bad for him, except for the fact that he cannot admit it. None of them can over there. They cannot admit their mistake, and that is unfortunate for Winnipeggers, unfortunate for Manitobans and definitely unfortunate for the country of Canada.

Perhaps it is time for some fresh blood from Winnipeg. We have the member for Elmwood Transcona, who is fresh blood as a Winnipegger in the House. What an excellent member of Parliament he is, and I cannot wait to see all the contributions he is going to make to this Parliament over the course of its duration.

However, to get back on track here, we are talking about finances, and it is terribly concerning what that member and the entire Liberal cabinet have done to the finances of this country over the course of the last long 11 years. The Liberals said that budgets balance themselves. Do members remember that one? That was a good one. What happened to the minister of middle-class prosperity? I loved that one, before I got elected to this place. There is still no definition from Liberal members as to what the heck that means. There is no concept. What has happened to the middle class since they appointed that ministry? Well, the ministry got abolished pretty shortly thereafter, because it was such a tire fire. Unfortunately, now all the middle class is at the food banks, and they ran out of food. That pretty much sums up the Liberal record on middle-class prosperity. It has been an abject failure, and now they do not want to even take questions on it.

The Liberals have moved time allocation on this bill so that they have only three hours of debate on a bill that, as my colleagues have mentioned, is over 300 pages long. They are going to ram through votes so that they can go off for the summer and spend like Liberals often do.

I guess we will see. Maybe the eleventh time is the charm. I doubt it. I really doubt it, but perhaps this time the significant deficit put forward by the government, the minister and that failed front bench will have better luck than “budgets balance themselves”, better luck than “spend less to invest more” and better luck, hopefully, I am praying, than the former minister of middle-class prosperity.

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

Madam Speaker, I must say that it was interesting listening to the member opposite's statements. At the end of the day, he has not really recognized the true value that is before the House today.

What we are talking about is a budget implementation bill that is a reflection of what I believe Canadians want to see. For example, we can talk about the groceries and essentials rebate. We can talk about the excise tax benefit, which is a suspension of 10¢ a litre until September. There are all sorts of wonderful things. There are small items, but also big items. There are big items that Manitoba is benefiting from for the first time in generations.

The member was not even born when the Port of Churchill was first being talked about. For the first time since then, we are talking about the Port of Churchill. I wonder if he supports that particular initiative.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I was born in a time when Liberals failed to meet their commitments to Manitoba. There is no question about that.

The member mentioned the Port of Churchill. There is no mention of a dollar figure for Churchill. If the Liberals support the Port of Churchill plus project, how much are they spending on it? We do not know, because it is not mentioned in any of these documents. That is the only major project that the Liberal government has come up with for the province of Manitoba.

The Liberals have six Manitoba members. One of them represents northern Manitoba. Is this all they could come up with? There are no budgetary figures for the one project they have got referred to the Major Projects Office. That is a shameful legacy for the Liberal members from Manitoba and a shameful record for the government overall.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the economic update overlooked President Trump's tariff increase. This is a 25% tariff on all products containing aluminum and steel, and it affects 25% of exports from Quebec to the United States. This makes Quebec the location most affected by tariffs.

The Bloc Québécois is proposing wage subsidy measures. Does my colleague acknowledge that? What solution does he propose?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, there is no question that Donald Trump's tariffs on Canadian products are an absolute disaster. Unfortunately, an equal disaster is the Liberal government's failure to live up to its election commitment to negotiate a deal with his administration. The Prime Minister touted himself as the big economic expert who was going to fly in and get a win for Canada. Well, here we are, well over a year into his prime ministership, and there is no deal with America, so my friends from Quebec, as well as those from every other province and from specific industries, are facing the brunt of that because of that failed promise from the Liberals.

The Conservatives do not believe in wage subsidies in particular. We would rather negotiate a deal in which we could continue to have tariff-free access to the American market. Our leader has put forward a plan to boost Canadian natural resources, not just in the oil and gas sector but also in the critical minerals sector, and use that as leverage to negotiate with the Americans for tariff-free access to their market.

That is something we would love for the Liberals to pillage from us. Maybe the Minister responsible for Canada-U.S. Trade wants to take that when he is on his next junket down to Washington. We would be glad for him to take it, glad for him to finally get some success on this file and glad to help our friends from Quebec and their industries that have been impacted by Donald Trump's disastrous tariff policy.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member something that is absolutely related to this. We hear this talk about the investments that we have yet to see that the Liberals claim they are going to make in our Armed Forces. They claim that it is going to mean huge increases in recruitment for the Canadian Armed Forces, but we see the way they treat our veterans. We see the massive cuts that have been made.

I know that the member represents many veterans in his area. I wonder whether he would like to comment on what he hears from veterans and whether they would recommend that people get involved in our Armed Forces, based on how our veterans are treated by the government.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important work standing up for the veterans of this country. No higher purpose, as I see it, really exists in this Parliament and in this country than standing up for those who have put on a uniform and put themselves in harm's way for the rest of us.

[An hon. member]

You closed down the office in Brandon. You know that, right?

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, to the member for Winnipeg North, I love this question because, yes, the office in Brandon was temporarily closed and moved to Shilo. The Liberals made hay of that when they were in opposition. They have since closed the Brandon office that they reopened. I wonder if the member for Winnipeg North knows that. It closed last year, permanently.

[An hon. member]

No.

[Grant Jackson, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, they gave up the lease, and the entire staff has been moved to Canadian Forces Base Shilo.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, before we get too much into that debate, the members over there who are heckling right now should understand that that is exactly what happened. The members over there are taking a very hypocritical action. That is for sure.

I stand today to address Bill C-31 and division 16 of that bill. I cannot help but feel a sense of concern among Canadians about what we are seeing here. It seems that the Liberal government makes announcement after announcement, and plan after plan, but it never actually implements anything. At times, people have been tempted to see some promise in some of the announcements and things that they hear, but Canadians are now starting to realize that once those announcements are made, nothing happens afterwards. The fear here is that this pattern is going to continue.

There is concern around this so-called Defence Investment Agency. The express purpose of this agency is to expedite the process for procuring new materials and new supplies for the Canadian Armed Forces, but the new agency has been announced with no real framework on how it would work. This bill attempts to address the powers of the new minister who would oversee this agency, but it leaves an awful lot to be desired. It leaves many grey areas that have members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and Canadians more generally, very concerned.

To start, there are many grave concerns about accountability. This seems to be a troubling pattern with the Liberal government. There seem to be some real, grave concerns about the accountability of this new agency, and the Liberals refuse to indicate who this new minister would be. There are provisions in the bill that would give this new minister immense power, to, for example, sole-source contracts on a wide variety of things without any oversight. Based on the sheer number of spending scandals that have been tied to the Liberal government over the past more than a decade, how can Canadians feel even remotely comfortable with the Liberals giving their ministers more power to spend without any oversight?

Division 16 would allow the Liberals' new agency the authority to spend on more consultants, despite the record number of bureaucrats they already employ to do the same work. It is well known that Liberals have abused the use of contractors and consultants to pay their own insider friends, and people are left to wonder how this would be any different.

The division also provides extremely loose definitions of what would be counted as defence spending under this new agency. It would allow the minister untold powers to sole-source products and materials, even when they are only just very remotely connected to matters of national defence.

Canadians need to have a clear understanding of what the Liberals are setting up in this agency, especially after they have misused so many taxpayer dollars on so many other occasions. The Liberals use what can sometimes be seen as good causes, and this would certainly be one of those, and they claim they are in the national interest, but then they use them to pay out their friends and to turn projects into slush funds. They did this with things like the green slush fund, the ArriveCAN app, SNC-Lavalin and, most recently, PrescribeIT.

How can Canadians who are eager to see investment in and rebuilding of our Canadian military feel secure that Liberals will establish a new agency and grant the minister of this agency so many powers, to take loans, advance payments, give government financial guarantees, give grants, establish corporations and buy shares, and do this all with no oversight in place? The Liberals have done absolutely nothing that would warrant the trust of Canadians, yet they are marching ahead with new ways to pay themselves and their friends, and they are trying to shroud it as defence spending.

I wonder if the Liberals could give the House even one example of past military procurement projects being held up or drawn out due to transparency in funding. Are they really suggesting that there is too much accountability in spending and that that is what has prevented the government from investing in the military? I doubt they can make that argument.

If that is not their argument, then why introduce these provisions buried in the back of a division in an omnibus budget bill? This reeks of corruption, and Canadians are not satisfied with the answers they are getting.

There are ample examples in the bill of the new agency's being granted the power to bypass procedural fairness in contracting and procurement processes, but to what purpose could that be? How can avoiding open competition for procurement projects and being able to sole-source contracts without explanation possibly result in the best use of taxpayers' funds for our military?

Bill C-31 would grant the new minister of the agency the ability to spend up to $1 billion without any checks and without any reporting mechanisms in place to show Canadians what was purchased for the spending. Clauses in the bill would grant this unnamed minister the ability to purchase shares of corporations using taxpayer funds and to replace members, directors and officers at their own discretion. Once again, this is the government famous for enriching its friends by giving them taxpayers' money and putting them in prestigious positions while the military suffers with outdated equipment and Canadians line up at food banks.

The loss of trust does not end there, though. It also deeply affects veterans in Canada. This is especially troubling because the Liberals are so certain that all these new announcements will attract record numbers of Canadians to join the armed forces. That is what we keep hearing over and over again. While the Liberals assume this will happen, they turn around and treat Canada's veterans like they are just a bother, a hindrance to get rid of, rather than treat them like the heroes they are and give them the help they deserve.

How can the Liberals expect Canadians to line up outside recruiting offices, when they see thousands and thousands of veterans left injured, homeless, changed by their service and not getting the help or resources they need once they are released from the military? I have heard, in my role as shadow minister for Veterans Affairs, from hundreds if not thousands of veterans who say that while they are proud of their service to Canada, they would never recommend the forces to their children or loved ones, because of how poorly the government has treated them since they left. They often say this with a broken heart, because they love the country they served and want our armed forces to be successful. When our veterans are warning Canadians to stay away, we have a much bigger problem.

The Liberal government needs to stop with all the talk and start with some action. The Liberals have been in power a year with the new Prime Minister, and it has been more than a decade that they have been in power in total. The only thing we have to show for it so far is an economic recession.

Most of the provisions in Bill C-31 lay out how the Liberals can spend more money on contracts and consultants, but nothing is mentioned about actual defence procurement. The one area that Canadians do want to see some spending in is our defence and veterans. The Liberals are dragging their heels and are busy trying to bury in legislation ways that would allow them to spend without any oversight rather than really doing the work of building up the military. This same omnibus bill approach, designed to not allow Parliament the proper time to check and analyze the contents, made historic cuts to veterans services just months ago. More than $4 billion was cut from veterans services in this budget.

On one hand, when the Liberals are caught trying to sneak in legislative changes to make it easier for them to enrich their insider friends, they tell Canadians that these provisions are actually going to make things better and make the ranks of the military swell with new recruits. However, on the other hand, they make the largest cuts to Veterans Affairs. This cognitive dissonance is not lost on Canadians or on members of our armed forces.

Through creative accounting, the Liberals are claiming they are spending 2% of our GDP on the military, despite the fact that they are counting things such as infrastructure spending, personnel benefits, the civilian Coast Guard and other things in their calculations to reach this conclusion, and these are all things that NATO will not count toward the 2% criteria. Now the Liberals stand before the House, after slashing support for veterans, after years of numerous scandals and after billions wasted on consultants, and ask Canadians to trust them with these new measures that would make it easier for them to abuse taxpayers' funds. I say that is something of great concern to many Canadians.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Madam Speaker, Oxford University Press chose the word of the year in 2025. That word was “rage bait”, and that speech was exhibit A.

When the member claims there has been $4.2 billion cut from the Veterans Affairs budget, he knows better. He knows that the $4.2 billion is an actuarial calculation that simply states the present value of a future obligation for medical cannabis, which is now being reimbursed to veterans at the market rate. There are no cutbacks. The same amount of cannabis is being distributed, only now the price that is being paid is the market rate. That is what is reflected in the $4 billion. Rage baiting is when one takes that and misconstrues it into something they know full well it is not.

Is the member ready now to stand up and acknowledge that is in fact the case and stop the rage baiting?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would be ashamed of myself if I was to stand and ask a question like that. I understand the role that the parliamentary secretary plays to defend a Prime Minister who is indefensible, frankly. However, when he stands up and tries to tell us that $4 billion is for cuts to cannabis, how much cannabis are the Liberals planning on handing out to veterans? That is a heck of a lot of cannabis.

Another thing we are hearing from veterans in long-term care is that they are being shortchanged. We hear from RCMP veterans who are having their pensions reduced. We hear about cuts to the bureau of pension advocates, which is the group that helps veterans get their benefits when they are denied by the government far too often. These are the kinds of impacts. The BPA cuts alone will mean five-year wait times for veterans to finally get the benefits they have worked so hard to deserve.

How can the member stand up and try to pretend that somehow we are manufacturing this? I guess all Canadians, veterans and everyone else who is crying about all of these horrible cuts are all rage baiting too, apparently. However, I will tell members right now that it is the government that is mistaken and it will pay the price for it.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, one of a federal government's values is how it treats those who served our country. Veterans do not need more announcements. They need timely services, reliable benefits and access to the supports they have earned.

With this budget adding more debt and pushing interest costs above $50 billion a year, could my colleague explain how Canadians can have confidence that veterans will remain a priority when so much of the government's revenue is being consumed simply by paying interest on past spending?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say to that is there is a bit of a premise to the question that I would take disagreement with. The member mentioned the idea of veterans remaining a priority. I would argue that veterans have never been a priority for the government. This budget only further proves that.

I mentioned already some of the things that we have seen cut, but the member, very correctly, raises some of the concerns that we see among Canadians more broadly, like food bank usage and homelessness. These things affect veterans, unfortunately, even more acutely than the general population of Canadians as a whole, so they are feeling those things worse than ever. However, when they go to seek the help they need because of the service they have given to our country and the injury that has caused them, we owe them as a country to make sure we are there for them. We have not been there for them. Under the government, as the member mentions, far too many veterans are homeless, using food banks and cannot get the help they deserve, need and have earned from the government.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I feel like I am unrecognizable today.

In summary, I have concerns when I look at Bill C‑31, especially the part about public contracts. The bill says that this division amends the financial administration to authorize the government to make regulations with respect to the conditions under which contracts may be entered into, despite any other act of Parliament. Essentially, the main amendment seems to be adding Crown corporations.

Are federal Crown corporations becoming the new way to get around the Financial Administration Act?

We just finished studying this at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Clearly, Crown corporations are like black holes: Accountability is not the same as within a department. Is it still a democracy when the government skirts the law and uses Crown corporations for expenses that the government should be incurring itself?

I would like to ask my colleague that question.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will just say that the member raised a lot of very good questions. They are questions that do not have answers. I think the reason they do not have answers is that the government is deliberately trying to avoid being accountable and being transparent. This is another way, just another way of many, to reward all of its friends, all the Liberal insiders, and it is being done at the expense of Canadians.

[Braedon Clark, Liberal, Sackville—Bedford—Preston, NS]

Madam Speaker, the world is changing rapidly, profoundly and, in many ways, irreversibly. It is more divided, more volatile and more dangerous than at any point since the end of the Cold War. In this new reality, the assumptions that shaped decades of Canadian defence and security policy no longer apply, and the threats we face are no longer just hypothetical scenarios. At the same time, we are dealing with rapidly changing methods of warfare, driven by the proliferation of drones, artificial intelligence, space-based weapons and new technologies that are still emerging.

The world has changed, and Canada must change with it. That is why our government is strengthening Canada's sovereign capabilities and critical sectors and deepening co-operation with trusted partners. To keep us safe and secure, we are making generational investments to rebuild, rearm, and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces, which will have a profound impact on my home province of Nova Scotia, where 20% of Canadian Armed Forces members are stationed.

With a bold new approach to defence procurement, we are transforming how we make those investments so that our military has what it needs, when it needs it, and so that Canadians benefit economically from those investments. This transformation is firmly anchored in Canada's first-ever defence industrial strategy, which was launched this past February. It is a landmark framework that sets a long-term vision for how we can strengthen our defence capabilities while building a more resilient, innovative and competitive industrial base right here at home.

At the centre of that strategy is the Defence Investment Agency. The agency plays a critical role in modernizing and accelerating defence procurement, ensuring we can deliver the right capabilities to the Canadian Armed Forces when they are needed most. At the same time, it is driving stronger investment, deeper partnerships and more meaningful engagement with the Canadian defence industry, helping to position Canadian companies to grow, innovate and contribute to both national security and economic prosperity.

Let us be honest. In the past, Canada's defence procurement system has been slow, complicated and fragmented, particularly when it comes to decision-making and accountability. We have all seen this movie too many times before, with our most critical defence procurement projects taking decades to complete in some cases. What we have in this country is a procurement system that at times struggles to respond to urgent operational needs, and this has come at a cost to the readiness of our armed forces, as well as our defence industrial base. Of course, this is not due to a lack of commitment or professionalism; rather, it is a reflection of a system that was simply not built for the dangerous environment we face today.

Canadians last year elected a government that would focus on building one strong economy. In doing so, we created Canada's first defence industrial strategy, which establishes a whole-of-government approach to transform Canada's defence industry and procurement system. It rightly prioritizes Canadian suppliers and materials wherever possible. It invests in Canadian innovation, commercialization and export potential, and it provides industry with a more streamlined, predictable and transparent demand outlook. The goal is straightforward: to strengthen Canada's strategic autonomy while building prosperity here at home. This strategy is going to get us there.

Over the next decade, we project that we will see an increase in Canada's defence exports by 50% and that we will raise the share, critically, of defence acquisitions awarded to Canadian firms to 70%, supporting our homegrown businesses and innovators in the defence space. The size, capability and competitiveness of Canada's defence industry as a result will, of course, grow. That means more high-quality and high-paying jobs for Canadians, from aerospace engineers to cyber specialists and from advanced manufacturing to digital technologies.

The Defence Investment Agency is the engine that will turn this strategy into reality. The DIA has a clear and focused mandate to re-equip our military faster and more effectively while leveraging defence investments to strengthen Canada's defence industrial base and attract private capital into the sector. It is designed to accelerate procurement timelines and bring sustained leadership and accountability to the largest defence investments made in generations in this country. The agency in its current form was launched in October 2025 as a special operating agency within Public Services and Procurement Canada.

In a very short time, it has already demonstrated its value, advancing major procurements such as Arctic over-the-horizon radar and the Canadian patrol submarine project, which are foundational to the defence of Canada, which, of course, has the longest coastline in the world. We know that the Defence Investment Agency, to fully deliver on its mandate, must be established as a stand-alone entity with the authorities, governance and agility required to match the scale of our government's ambition. That has always been the plan.

In our spring economic update, our government proposed $103.8 million over five years, starting in this fiscal year, and $22.3 million ongoing, to establish and operate the DIA as a stand-alone organization. Today, we debate a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget, which was tabled in Parliament on November 4 of last year, specifically on the defence and national security production and procurement act.

To be clear, the legislation is not about bureaucracy. It is about capability. It is about speed. It is about aligning procurement with strategy, industry with security and investment with outcomes. This includes actively advancing initiatives aimed at reducing red tape and improving efficiency, which would ultimately reduce duplication, increase time savings and streamline processes.

These initiatives would allow us to better align with our G7 and NATO partners, which, as we know, is more important than ever, as today's global challenges, including international peace and security, global economic stability and growth, and the digital transition, require Canadians and allies to work together to find shared solutions. That is why Canada is working with G7 and NATO partners to build a new era of collaboration, one rooted in trusted partnerships, competitive economies and innovation that delivers for people and businesses. This is especially critical when it comes to the defence sector.

This moment in history demands seriousness of purpose and a new approach to defence procurement, which is at the heart of our debate tonight. Since day one, our government has acted, and we are seeing results. Last fiscal year alone, Canada invested more than $63 billion in defence, the largest increase in generations. In March, Canada reached the NATO alliance's benchmark of spending 2% of GDP on defence five years earlier than planned, and we are on a path to meet the 5% NATO target by 2035. That is imperative because when Canada invests in defence, we are investing in Canadians, our workers and our innovators, and all of our future responsibilities.

The changes we propose are necessary, timely and forward-looking. They recognize that Canada's security and economic strength are inseparable and that we must be able to act quickly and decisively in a more dangerous world. By establishing the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity, we are building a procurement system fit for today and for the future. We are backing our armed forces with the tools they need, and we are backing Canadian industry and business with opportunity and certainty, helping to ultimately establish Canada's place in the world as a strong, reliable and capable ally.

For all of these reasons, I urge all members of the House to support the Defence Investment Agency and, as a result, support a stronger, safer and more resilient Canada.