Debates of June 1st, 2026

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Saskatoon West on his speech. I have a question for him.

I assume this government is pushing its bills through under closure because it is afraid that too much debate would lay bare its failures so far.

This government and this Prime Minister were elected on the promise of standing up to Donald Trump and his tariff and economic threats.

I will give my colleague from Saskatoon West all the time he needs to list all the victories this government has achieved against Donald Trump since it was elected just over a year ago.

I would like to hear them all. He can take all the time he needs.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

The member will not speak for the entire allotted time, because we want to leave time for a third question.

The hon. member for Saskatoon West.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, given the Prime Minister's comments over the last few days, I guess we now have MAGA Liberals in the House.

It is quite interesting that the government is unable to follow the normal process of introducing bills in the House, having them debated, having them go to committee and having them go through the normal process all bills go through. This is where important questions need to be asked, where witnesses can come in and help us understand what is going on. Of course, the government does not want any of that. It wants to be able to shove these bills into the House and then do time allocation, which, for those following at home, just means that it cuts everything off, cuts off debate and forces things to go through the House in a very quick manner without all of the due process they should have. That is a shame, and it is something that is not helpful for processes like this.

[Helena Konanz, Conservative, Similkameen—South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned that he is knocking on doors and that his constituents are talking about lower grocery costs, making our streets safer, lower taxes and more affordable housing. I am hearing that at the doors also. I am sure all of us are hearing some of the same things, at least.

Why does the member think the Liberals would create this bill that is basically ignoring what Canadians are really asking for?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am sure Liberal MPs are hearing the same thing. They are hearing about food prices, housing costs, safety on the streets, all the same things we hear about. It is pretty uniform across the country. It is a very good question. Why does that not make its way into something like a budget bill? There are tiny little smatterings of it in here, but most of it is about other things, and it is a real shame because what the government is doing is not impacting Canadians, the average Canadian, the way it needs to. Average Canadians are still struggling.

We have heard recently that food bank usage is up, and actually, a quarter of food banks are running out of food. These are real problems faced by real Canadians every day, and none of these things are addressed properly or even close to in any way in this budget. It is a shame, and because we do not have the time to actually go to committee and study this, because we are probably going to get pushed to end this quickly, we will never have a chance to understand that. Canadians will never truly know what is going on in this budget, and it is just something that I think is bad. It is a shame, and it is a shameful way for the government to act.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise here today to speak to Bill C-31 and the heart of our national security, our economic resilience and our sovereignty as a nation.

Canada has long stood as a proud and reliable partner among the world's leading democracies. Our work within the G7 and our enduring commitment to NATO reflect not only our values but our understanding that collective security and co-operation are essential in an increasingly uncertain world. If Canada is to remain a credible and capable partner abroad, we must ensure that we are equally strong and prepared at home.

For too long, Canada's defence procurement system has been fragmented across multiple departments, slow to engage with industry and overly complex in its execution. The result has been delays that stretch not months but years, sometimes even decades, before critical equipment reaches the Canadian Armed Forces. This is not simply an administrative issue. It is a matter of sovereignty. A nation that cannot equip its armed forces in a timely and effective manner risks undermining its own ability to defend its territory, protect its interests and respond to emerging threats. That is why Bill C-31 is significant.

The creation of the Defence Investment Agency represents a decisive step forward in modernizing Canada's approach to defence procurement. This agency will consolidate procurement processes that are currently spread across government. By removing duplicate approvals and cutting unnecessary red tape, it will accelerate timelines and provide much-needed clarity and predictability to our industry partners. With a centralized process for review and approval, procurements will move forward more efficiently. With specialized expertise housed within a single agency, we will ensure that defence acquisitions are managed with the focus and precision they require.

I would like to take a moment to talk about how this is important in St. Catharines and within southern Ontario. We have seen through the threat of tariffs, the trade war with the United States, the impact on the manufacturing sector in southern Ontario. St. Catharines, and Niagara, relies on the automotive industry. It is something we have relied on for about a century. That threat is there. We have heard it from our American partners. The Prime Minister is right in ensuring that we step up and meet our NATO commitments and using that commitment to build and ensure strength within our manufacturing sector.

I had the opportunity to tour a company in St. Catharines called FBT. FBT is a multi-generational company that has been in business for quite some time. It saw the writing on the wall a few years back, as it primarily did business with the automotive sector, and has switched its processes in-house to focus on defence and nuclear. It still does some automotive. In touring that facility a couple of times, I saw that it is using advanced manufacturing with high precision and is ready to take it to the next level. It is expanding and will be able to meet the needs that Canada is putting forward in our defence sector. It provides a great number of high-paying jobs in St. Catharines and has a lot of long-term employees there, which speaks to the good work it does. A lot of tool and die shops, and other companies within the Niagara region, can learn a lot from this company.

With this type of agency in place, which can see procurement move quickly, a lot of companies can retool. They can be dual-use and work within what we have laid out in the defence industrial strategy.

We do not have to go far from FBT in St. Catharines. Across the street from FBT is Ontario Shipyards. At the moment, it is undergoing a $130-million refit of a Canadian Coast Guard vessel, the Terry Fox. I am sure others in this place may look to a place in southern Ontario and question what I am about to say, but St. Catharines has a strong tradition of shipbuilding. It is one of the industries that it was founded upon. The Welland Canal is older than the railway itself in this country, and St. Catharines was the heart of that. We need to get back to that.

With these changes, with speeding things up, I would like to see more development, more opportunities for a shipyard that has been vacant for far too long. We have seen the benefits in Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia, with ships being built there and government contracts. With us getting to our NATO commitments, I would like to see that next step happen in St. Catharines.

Let me come back to the agency, which will align defence procurement more strategically with Canada's economic and industrial objectives. Every dollar invested in defence is an opportunity to create careers, grow Canadian business and drive innovation in sectors such as aerospace, shipbuilding and advanced manufacturing. By leveraging procurement as a tool for economic development, we will strengthen our domestic industrial base, reduce reliance on external supply chains and position Canadian firms to compete on a global stage. We saw that even in southern Ontario, in Kitchener, with the Canadian military ordering a new service rifle to be in line with our European allies. I believe it was the Danes who ordered tens of thousands of these rifles as well.

The opportunity is there. The Prime Minister has worked very hard to build relationships with like-minded allies. To see, even in just one announcement, the benefit to southern Ontario and the supply chains throughout southern Ontario from this defence industrial strategy is a good thing. It is something that I know concerns my colleagues across southern Ontario, with the loss of jobs, especially in the automotive industry.

Our approach includes continued investment in dual-purpose infrastructure, projects that serve both our military and the broader Canadian public, ensuring that our defence spending delivers tangible benefits across society. The Defence Investment Agency will ensure earlier and more meaningful engagement between the Canadian Armed Forces and our defence industry. By bringing industry into the conversation at the outset, we will enable a clearer understanding of operational needs, realistic timelines and available technological solutions. This proactive approach will allow Canada to anticipate future requirements and build capacity at the speeds and scale that modern security demands.

Finally, the agency will strengthen Canada's alignment with key allies, including the United Kingdom, Australia and France, countries that have already established dedicated procurement bodies to streamline their defence investments. This alignment will make our joint procurement initiatives more efficient and enhance our ability to collaborate within NATO. Our commitments to NATO are clear: We must meet the benchmark of 2% of GDP in defence spending, and we must contribute meaningfully to the alliance's long-term objectives, including the 5% investment pledge by 2035.

By reforming the procurement system, we are not only meeting these commitments but also reinforcing Canada's role as a dependable and capable ally. At the same time, this initiative positions Canada to play a leading role in broader multilateral efforts, including Europe's readiness 2030 plan, which seeks to strengthen defence supply chains and industrial co-operation among allied nations.

There is no contradiction between sovereignty and co-operation. On the contrary, in an interconnected world, they are mutually reinforcing. By strengthening our domestic capabilities, we enhance our independence, and by aligning with our allies, we amplify our strength.

Canada must be ready not only to meet the challenges of today but also to anticipate those of tomorrow. This reform is an important step in that direction.

I know that many of my colleagues went to the CANSEC conference in Ottawa to see the business that is happening. I know that the Prime Minister announced a significant investment with Saab that will have some substantial economic benefits, not only within our aerospace industry but beyond, to strengthen those supply chains that have been shocked. Companies concerned that they have no orders on the books will have an opportunity to grow and to meet that new demand, and they will feel safe in the understanding that Canada's government has their back and is willing to move forward and to ensure that industries under attack are protected under the defence industrial strategy.

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

Madam Speaker, in picking up exactly where the member left off, I will say that am quite curious about protecting defence industrial capability.

We heard a lot from the member and from the Prime Minister about Saab and the agreement on surveillance planes. We are all wondering when the government is going to make the decision on our next fighter jet capability. I understand there have been promises from Saab about eastern Canadian jobs but very little about that for western Canada, if the Gripen is to be produced in Canada. Meanwhile, many good jobs in Winnipeg are based at Magellan Aerospace, which makes the entire tail fin component of the F-35.

I am wondering if the member is going to advocate just as strongly for aerospace industry jobs in Manitoba as he is for those in eastern Canada.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think we are falling into an old debate in a system where we were not spending enough on defence. We were all concerned about not everyone getting a piece of the pie.

We are in a situation now where if we are at 2%, which we are, going to 3.5%, there is an opportunity for the manufacturing sector, not just in Ontario but also in Manitoba. We have heard announcements across the country. The old saying “A rising tide lifts all boats” applies. This is something we can see right now. Though I cannot speak about and have no insider information on what will happen next with our next fighter purchase, I know that it will benefit not only just one area of the country but from coast to coast to coast.

[Terry Dowdall, Conservative, Simcoe—Grey, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for discussing the automotive industry for a small portion of his speech.

I know that there is great concern in the county of Simcoe, as host to Honda as well as to Toyota. There are really only the big two now in Canada.

We have a government that wants to buy Canadian and support Canadian. I would like to ask the member where we are at when we are bringing up to 50,000 Chinese EV vehicles into Canada that are not going to be produced here. The battery plant has been cancelled. That was $15 billion in investment. Does the member opposite feel that the government's buy Canadian policy and then, by the same hand, getting Chinese vehicles imported here is going to help manufacturers here in Canada?

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, St. Catharines has had a General Motors factory in our city for, I believe, about the last century. It is something I do hear about from constituents. It is something they are concerned about.

Down the road in Niagara, construction is continuing on a battery separator plant. It will open in 2027 and will be transformative. The number of Chinese automobiles the member is talking about is such a small segment of the market. There has been an increase in production at Honda and Toyota. I know they have suspended plans for further expansion, but their production is strong. We look for more of that in the future.

I talked about many of the buy Canada projects. Buy Canada is the Government of Canada's buying. The Government of Canada is not buying the vehicles that the member is talking about. I would be excited to be working with companies like General Motors to build Canada strong.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to respond in terms of Manitoba's aerospace industry. Whether it is Magellan Aerospace, StandardAero, the Winnipeg Airports Authority and the work it is doing, WestJet, or the Canadian Forces air force base, Manitoba is in fact very aggressive in looking at how we can expand that industry, and we have received a very positive response. I would love to do a comparison with what we have done over recent years, in particular ever since we have had the increase.

I would not support the member for Portage—Lisgar or other members of Parliament's trying to discredit what I think is an important opportunity. There is no regional preference. It is something important. We should be supporting federal co-operation and ensuring that there is a sense of equality.

I am just wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts in regard to a more collaborative approach in building a stronger, healthier Canada.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is amazing. Everyone woke up when the hon. member asked a question.

We even heard from the minister today, talking about the significant investments that are happening in Cold Lake, Alberta: billions of dollars' worth. We are going to see that across the country. It will not just be with one project, one item of procurement. The bill would help, as I said, raise all boats.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I will be sharing my time with the member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

Before I begin my speech, I just wanted to send a quick congratulatory note to North of North, which won multiple awards at the Canadian Screen Awards.

Ullukkut. I am happy to speak on behalf of Nunavummiut regarding Bill C-31, and I will be speaking regarding the proposed amendments to the Territorial Lands Act contained in Bill C-31. These amendments are essential. The Territorial Lands Act helps govern how Crown lands are managed in Nunavut, a region that is central to Canada's long-term vision for the north and to the development of a resilient Canadian economy.

The amendments would strengthen Canada's sovereignty to protect our national interests and support sustainable economic development for Nunavummiut. As the Prime Minister has made clear, the north is going through a period of profound change and unprecedented opportunity. The Arctic's vast resources and growing marine access are creating new possibilities for trade, transportation and economic growth.

Meanwhile, the world is becoming more dangerous and divided. Last March, the Prime Minister described the assumptions that shaped decades of Canadian defence and security as shifting rapidly. He said, “Climate change is causing our Arctic region to warm nearly three times faster than the global average, a shift that great powers are actively looking to exploit.” Countries around the world are competing for access to the critical minerals needed for clean energy and advanced technology.

In this time of global uncertainty, Canada must be prepared. We must build strength here at home, bolster our security, build a stronger Canada and take full responsibility for defending our Arctic sovereignty. Canada is moving from reliance to resilience. We will no longer depend on any one nation. We will build a stronger, more independent country. We will take measures to build and keep the north secure.

We are working with territorial and indigenous partners to seize these opportunities and boldly develop the full economic potential of the region. As announced by the Prime Minister, “At the centre of this plan are the 140,000 Northerners and Indigenous peoples who will have stronger, more sustainable, more connected communities, greater opportunities, and a lower cost of living.”

The stakes are high, and we need to act. That is why we are proposing these important amendments to the Territorial Lands Act. If we are going to responsibly develop Canada's critical minerals, clean energy and transportation and trade corridors needed to strengthen our economy, Canada's national interests must guide our decisions. We cannot allow our resources to be taken up or used in ways that undermine our security, sovereignty or economic future.

Let me explain what the amendments would do. The Territorial Lands Act sets the framework for making decisions about land use, mineral exploration and development, and environmental protections on Crown lands in Nunavut. However, the current framework does not provide a clear tool to address solutions where mineral tenure would interfere with Canada's national interests. Bill C-31 would address this gap. If passed, the amendments would allow the Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Northern and Arctic Affairs, to act when it is in the national interest.

This could include stopping mineral claims on certain lands for a period of time, cancelling existing mineral rights, cancelling prospecting licences and, in some cases, preventing specified parties from reapplying for those licences and mineral rights permanently or for a period of time. The proposed amendments would also establish clear processes around notification and compensation. The minister would be required to notify any affected mineral rights holder and determine whether compensation would be warranted, and, if so, how much. The legislation would also allow regulations to support implementation of these measures where needed.

These are targeted measures intended for limited circumstances. As global interest in Canada's resources grows, we must ensure access to those resources is administered in a way that protects Canada's national interests. The goal of these changes is to ensure that mineral rights on federal Crown land in Nunavut are protected, in partnership with Inuit, for the benefit of their communities and to safeguard our country.

Nunavummiut are at the heart of a strong Arctic. Protecting our sovereignty in the north relies on partnership with the people who live there. That is why the amendments to the Territorial Lands Act were informed by engagement with indigenous partners and the Government of Nunavut.

In fact, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. asked the Government of Canada to address these potential risks on federal Crown land in Nunavut, just as they are doing on their lands. That request helped inform these proposed amendments.

Following discussions with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Nunavut, budget 2025 included a commitment to pursue amendments to the Territorial Lands Act. Between December 2025 and March 2026, the government engaged with five indigenous groups with asserted or established rights in Nunavut, as well as with the Government of Nunavut, on the proposed amendments. We have heard clearly that indigenous rights must be respected. We will continue to work so that these amendments align with territorial laws as Nunavut moves forward toward greater decision-making authority, through devolution planned for April 2027.

Our discussions with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Government of Nunavut showed broad support for measures that would help address risk to Canada's national interests. We believe that the proposed amendments strike the right balance between economic opportunity, indigenous partnership and national security. Should these amendments pass, our work will not stop. The comments raised through engagement will continue to inform the work ahead, including Nunavut devolution, implementation of the United Nations declaration action plan and the ongoing review of federal laws across government.

Several provinces and territories are also taking steps to modernize how mineral rights are managed and to address similar security and sovereignty vulnerabilities resulting from Canada's mineral rights free entry system. Nunavut should not be left behind. Canada needs modern tools that reflect today's economic and security realities in partnership with provinces, territories, indigenous partners and rights holders.

The proposed amendments would complement other security-related initiatives being advanced across the federal government, including Public Safety Canada, Natural Resources Canada, the Department of National Defence and Global Affairs Canada.

Ultimately, this work is about partnership. It is about working alongside Inuit, indigenous governments, territorial partners, federal partners, industry and communities to build a stronger and more secure north together. It is about protecting the safety and security of everyone in Canada.

Inuit are at the heart of Arctic sovereignty because the north is where they live, work and raise their families. As such, this is about making sure Inuit have the ability to help shape decisions about the future of their lands and resources in ways that create lasting benefits for their communities and future generations.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley Township—Fraser Heights, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government is going to be adding somewhere between $70 billion and $80 billion in additional debt to its already sky-high deficit with accumulated debt of over $1 trillion. If I take the middle point and apply 4% interest to it, that is $3 billion every year just in additional interest payments on an already very high number.

How does the Liberal government justify adding tens of billions of dollars of debt to the national debt when so many Canadians are already struggling with the cost of living?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, here is how I answer that question. Canada is investing in Canada. Canada is making sure that it can defend itself, and it is doing so with measures that will help make sure that this includes Nunavut and keeping the Arctic secure.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the billions of dollars in subsidies that are given to the oil companies, and the decision to waive several environmental assessments.

Does she think this will be good for the fight against climate change? Does this not ultimately threaten the entire environment, which, I believe, is very important to her?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I think that is why it is so important, with this speech specifically, that we continue to highlight that we need to work with indigenous partners. Indigenous partners, we know, have been stewards of these lands for generations, and working closely with them will help to make sure that we have a balanced approach to making sure that we can build Canada strong.

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

Madam Speaker, first, I must applaud the member in terms of her contributions, whether it is to the northern Prairie regional caucus and beyond or the national caucus, in regard to being that powerful advocate for the north. I very much appreciate her many contributions.

The member asked a question earlier today, which amplified the strength and potential of Canada's north. Could she provide further comments on that issue?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am thankful for the wonderful opportunity to share more about the strengths of Nunavut.

I mentioned, in my question, Joe, who is from the Kitikmeot region. He is a long-haul truck driver, but also, as I mentioned, he and his family have been stewards of the land for generations. For him, it is striking a balance between economic opportunities that will help with economic prosperity for Nunavummiut while keeping a balance with protecting the environment and making sure they still have access to caribou and marine mammals. These are great strengths that Inuit, in particular, have in the Arctic that I am sure are replicated in the many first nations and Métis stories, which we need to keep hearing in the House of Commons so that when we are talking about Canada, we are also lifting up indigenous peoples, given that June 1 is the first day of National Indigenous History Month.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île said, a lot of climate policies have been walked back. The government ended the carbon tax and, for all intents and purposes, the industrial carbon tax. It is also allowing hydrogen made from methane to be classified as clean hydrogen, granting new oil subsidies, and so on. Despite all this backtracking, including the funding for new pipelines, the government is telling us that it will be able to fulfill its obligations under the Paris Agreement as early as this year.

Bloc Québécois members play fair. We criticize, but we ask for figures first. We are asking the government what figures it is basing its claim on. However, there do not seem to be any figures.

I would like my colleague to tell me one thing. She was recently a member of the NDP caucus, and I think she was interested in these figures when she was a New Democrat.

Now that she is a new member on that side of the House, is she pushing for those figures to be made public?

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am always going to make sure, when it comes to us doing our work as parliamentarians, that we have transparency, of course. I know, for example, that when I asked my question about protecting the environment, I talked about how important the Inuit-led wind project is in Hope Bay—

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

I am terribly sorry, but I have to cut it there.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the 330-page budget implementation act, no. 2. All I can say is here we go again. This act, which puts in place measures to implement what was announced in the update, is just more of what we have become accustomed to from the Liberal government. The Liberals keep building bureaucracies and spending at speeds never seen before, faster than the previous Trudeau government. Any fiscal room that was generated by higher-than-expected revenues went immediately out the door.

For more than a decade, the Liberals have preached that deficit spending will drive the growth in the economy needed to produce good-paying jobs for Canadians. For a government that is desperately trying to convince Canadians it is different and would achieve the results Canadians have been waiting a decade for, the spring economic update proves very little has changed. Every dollar that comes into the economy is another dollar to subsidize itself.

The Liberals have caused the regulatory burden in Canada to balloon and suppress innovation and growth. Inaction is a choice. A perfect example of this is the sections in this bill that create the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone entity. The powers it is granting to an unnamed minister are broad and sweeping. The exceptions to competitive procurements are vast and can be used as much as the unknown minister chooses. Exceptions are likely to become the norm.

No one would argue that defence procurement has been in major need of reform. Onerous rules and layers of bureaucratic processes have only grown. The pace that meets the operational needs of the Canadian Armed Forces has been sorely needed. One could expect that over the 11 years the Liberals have been in power, they would have worked to overhaul and reform the systems and rules around procurement. One could expect it, but they would be wrong. The Liberals' solution to the bureaucratic bloat seems to be the exact same as it was a year ago. It was in Bill C-5 this time last year that the Liberals claimed they needed extraordinary powers to bypass regulations and roadblocks that got in the way of major projects. They have yet to use any of those powers to designate a project in the national interest to advance our resource development.

I do not bring up Bill C-5 to talk about the lack of results from the government on resource development; there are more than enough examples to talk about this elsewhere. I bring it up because it was originally drafted in such a way that would have allowed the government to bypass not only certain acts of Parliament to build projects, but virtually any act of Parliament. Allow me to list a few of the acts it sought the ability to bypass before it was amended at committee: the Access to Information Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Investment Canada Act and the Lobbying Act just to name a few.

The only reason this was prevented at the time was because of the minority government that Canadians had elected. A year later, now we have the same story. Procurement has become slow, costly and unable to deliver the lethality and operational readiness our armed forces need. To give members an idea of the state of operational readiness in our armed forces, we can use the Department of National Defence's own annual results from 2024-25. Less than 60% of our maritime fleet is serviceable and ready to go out on operations. Only 51% of our land fleets are sitting at the ready and well maintained so troops can use them. Only 42% of our aircraft in the Canadian Armed Forces are ready to serve and have the proper maintenance. That is years of waiting for the government to deliver while rules and processes grew without any reform.

The solution, according to the Liberals, is not to bring about reform or transformation, but rather to grant an unknown minister near-unlimited power to bypass competitive procurement rules. He or she would be able to bar anyone from being allowed to compete without ever having to provide a reason why.

This unknown minister can draw $1 billion from the consolidated revenue fund, without ever needing to go to the Treasury Board to purchase shares in companies, and fire entire boards. They can use exceptions to competitive procurements to no end, never having to justify or report it to anyone. These powers can be delegated to the CEO, undermining the entire point having a single place for accountability.

A year ago, we had Bill C-5, and the same story, the same solution was presented. In this case, however, the Liberals are seeking the ability to just go around the rules without ever having to explain why to anyone. This is rife for abuse. If power is to be given, the case must be made for how it will be balanced with accountability. This budget implementation act allows the same failed thinking that got us here: no case for reform and no change in approach.

As I said, inaction is a choice. Proud Canadians in my riding of Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek were looking for a signal that something better was on the way. Instead, they see that the Liberals under this Prime Minister have not changed their approach at all. Deficit spending still has not produced the results the Liberals have been promising.

The interest on our debt will total more than $50 billion. Nobody on that side of the aisle seems to be interested in what we could do with our economy with that $50 billion every year. These interest charges will continue to rise and total more than a projected $80 billion by 2030‑31, with no course correction in sight.

Instead, the Liberals continue to announce even new ways to deficit spend: enter the sovereign debt fund. We recently learned that the estimated interest payments to borrow the money for this fund will be three-quarters of a billion dollars annually. They have yet to even tell Canadians what the return on their money might be. Canadians have been waiting. They continue to pay their taxes and play by the rules. They have kept their end of the deal. Saskatchewan and Saskatchewanians have kept their end of the deal. In return, the government is supposed to deliver on the results it promised Canadians. It is avoiding real change.

Instead, after more than a year since the previous election, it has opted to tinker with the margins or make small changes around the edges, and it has not been willing to change the approach it has taken to our economy. Its spending and its Defence Investment Agency all follow the same failed logic of the previous 10 years. Simply allowing the Liberals to have more power and more authority to avoid the bureaucracy they created and accountability is not the solution.

Conservatives will wait to see who will be named as minister, and whether the Liberals will use their manufactured majority to continue a pattern of avoiding accountability at committee when this bill is referred to it.

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

Madam Speaker, just over the last year, after Canadians elected a new prime minister and a new government, our Prime Minister and our government have made it very clear how we want to build a stronger and healthier country. The member made a lot of references to Saskatchewan, understandably so. Coast to coast to coast, we have a government that is committed to building the infrastructure and getting the investments. When I think of the provinces out in the prairies, I think of the LNG and the pipelines. In Saskatchewan, we can talk about the copper, the mines, the potash, the canola, and so forth. We have a government that is really focused on building up western Canada.

I am wondering if she could provide her thoughts in regard to just how important it is that we continue to support the major building projects that are under way.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that under way are the key words in that phrase, because the first five projects the government announced were well under way. That was more performative than anything. What I would say is that Bill C-31 is proof that in year 11, the Liberals continue to put forward legislation that keeps the same failed logic we have come to expect. Believing that an 11th try using deficits to fund jobs will bear the fruit they desire is wishful thinking. I heard someone else say the issues are real and the consequences of bad policy-making are being felt across the country by Canadians. It truly is time the government holds up its end of the deal and changes course from the reckless deficit spending it has become known for.