Bill C-15

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) expanding the rollover for small business corporation shares;
(b) expanding the list of expenses recognized under the Disability Supports Deduction;
(c) exempting the Canada Disability Benefit from income;
(d) aligning the taxation of investment income and active business income earned and distributed by controlled foreign affiliates with the rules that currently apply to Canadian-controlled private corporations;
(e) extending the deadline for making certain charitable donations eligible for tax support in the 2024 tax year;
(f) increasing the limit under the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption so that it applies on up to $1.25 million of eligible capital gains, applicable to dispositions that occur on or after June 25, 2024, with indexation of the limit to resume in 2026;
(g) exempting the first $10 million in capital gains on the sale of a business to a worker cooperative and amending the corresponding exemption for sales to an employee ownership trust;
(h) removing the tax-indifferent investor exception to the synthetic equity arrangement anti-avoidance rule;
(i) improving the efficiency of the Home Accessibility Tax Credit;
(j) implementing the Personal Support Workers Tax Credit;
(k) enhancing the SR&ED program by increasing the annual expenditure limit and taxable capital phase-out thresholds for the enhanced 35% SR&ED credit, extending the enhanced credit to eligible Canadian public corporations and restoring the eligibility of SR&ED capital expenditures;
(l) extending the Mineral Exploration Tax Credit for individuals who invest in eligible mining flow-through shares for two years to March 31, 2027 at the current rate of 15%;
(m) expanding the eligibility of the Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit to bismuth, cesium, chromium, fluorspar, germanium, indium, manganese, molybdenum, niobium, phosphate, tantalum, tin and tungsten;
(n) amending the Canada Carbon Rebate for Small Businesses;
(o) extending the full credit rates for the Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage investment tax credit to 2035;
(p) expanding the eligibility for the clean technology investment tax credit to support the generation of electricity and heat from waste biomass;
(q) expanding the eligibility for the clean technology manufacturing investment tax credit to investments in eligible polymetallic projects and to additional qualifying materials;
(r) providing a refundable investment tax credit to qualifying corporations and trusts for investments in certain clean electricity property;
(s) amending the alternative minimum tax to exempt certain trusts for the benefit of Indigenous groups;
(t) precluding a corporation from qualifying as a mutual fund corporation where it is controlled by or for the benefit of a corporate group;
(u) extending the period during which agricultural cooperatives can distribute tax-deferred patronage dividends paid in shares to their members until the end of 2030;
(v) narrowing the rules related to reporting by trusts;
(w) providing the Minister of National Revenue with the authority to waive the withholding requirement for payments to certain non-resident service providers;
(x) allowing the sharing of information for the purposes of administering and enforcing the Canada Labour Code as it relates to the misclassification of employees;
(y) reforming Canada’s transfer pricing rules;
(z) reinstating the accelerated investment incentive and immediate expensing for certain qualifying assets;
(z.1) providing an accelerated capital cost allowance of 10% for new eligible purpose-built rental projects;
(z.2) providing immediate expensing for new additions of property in respect of productivity-enhancing assets;
(z.3) introducing a temporary non-refundable tax credit applicable where an individual’s non-refundable tax credit amounts exceed the first income tax bracket threshold; and
(z.4) implementing a number of technical amendments to correct inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
It also makes a related amendment to the Excise Tax Act .
Part 2 repeals the Digital Services Tax Act and the Digital Services Tax Regulations and makes consequential amendments to other legislation.
Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act , the Underused Housing Tax Act , the Select Luxury Items Tax Act and other related texts to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Tax Act and a related text by
(a) clarifying that supplies of osteopathic services rendered by individuals who are not osteopathic physicians are taxable under the Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax;
(b) extending the Enhanced (100%) Goods and Services Tax Rental Rebate to qualifying cooperative housing corporations and student residences built by universities, public colleges and school authorities; and
(c) allowing input tax credits for redeemed coupons to be available only for payments made exclusively in the course of commercial activities.
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Underused Housing Tax Act to end the underused housing tax in respect of 2025 and future calendar years. It also subsequently repeals the Underused Housing Tax Act and the Underused Housing Tax Regulations .
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Select Luxury Items Tax Act to end the luxury tax in respect of subject aircraft and subject vessels. It also makes the Select Luxury Items Tax Regulations to provide greater clarity on the tax treatment of subject items.
Part 4 amends the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to, among other things,
(a) establish an opt-in framework for interested Indigenous governments to levy a value-added sales tax, under their own laws, on fuel, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and vaping products within their reserves or settlement lands; and
(b) make process-type improvements and machinery of government changes to streamline the administration of taxes under that Act.
It also makes consequential amendments to the Excise Tax Act and to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act .
Part 5 enacts and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 5 enacts the High-Speed Rail Network Act , which establishes a legislative framework to facilitate the implementation of a rail network that allows for the carrying of passengers at high speed between Quebec and Ontario. That Act, among other things,
(a) deems the construction of the railway lines that are to be part of the high-speed rail network to have been approved under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act ;
(b) provides that the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of each segment of the high-speed rail network, and any incidental physical activity, is subject to the Impact Assessment Act ;
(c) permits certain land to be subject to a notice of right of first refusal or a notice of prohibition on work;
(d) amends the expropriation process in relation to the high-speed rail network;
(e) provides that Indigenous knowledge that is provided in confidence in relation to the high-speed rail network is treated as confidential; and
(f) makes certain Parts of the Official Languages Act applicable to certain entities, including those that operate a railway that is part of the high-speed rail network.
The Division also makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 2 of Part 5 amends the Canada Post Corporation Act to repeal the power to make regulations prescribing rates of postage and the terms and conditions related to the payment of postage and instead provide the Canada Post Corporation with the authority to establish those rates and terms and conditions and provide for exceptions.
Division 3 of Part 5 provides, among other things, that an aggregate amount not exceeding $11.5 billion to fund the operations and activities of Build Canada Homes and an aggregate amount not exceeding $1.515 billion as a contribution of capital to, or to purchase shares in, Canada Lands Company Limited may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Division 4 of Part 5 amends the Canada Infrastructure Bank Act to increase the aggregate amount that the Minister of Finance may pay to the Canada Infrastructure Bank to $45,000,000,000.
Division 5 of Part 5 amends the Red Tape Reduction Act to, among other things, authorize, subject to certain conditions, ministers to grant temporary exemptions from the application of provisions of certain Acts of Parliament and instruments with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of regulatory regimes to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth in the clean technology or financial technology sector.
Division 6 of Part 5 amends the Public Service Superannuation Act to, among other things, expand the eligibility for early retirement available to certain contributors employed in operational service to new groups of contributors.
Division 7 of Part 5 amends the Public Service Superannuation Act to authorize certain contributors to exercise a temporary early retirement option during a period for which a workforce reduction initiative is in effect. It also makes a related amendment to the Income Tax Regulations .
Division 8 of Part 5 amends the Farm Credit Canada Act to, among other things, provide for a review of the provisions and operation of that Act within five years after the day on which the amendment comes into force and every 10 years after that.
Division 9 of Part 5 repeals the Consumer-Driven Banking Act and enacts a new Consumer-Driven Banking Act to ensure that individuals and businesses can safely and securely share their data with the participating entities of their choice. That Act addresses, among other things, accreditation, national security, data sharing, security safeguards, consent, authentication, liability, complaints, administration and enforcement and screen scraping. The Division also makes related amendments to the Access to Information Act , the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1 .
Division 10 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to extend the period during which federal financial institutions governed by those Acts may carry on business.
Division 11 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to, among other things, modernize prudential limits by repealing certain provisions that impose limits on federally regulated financial institutions with respect to debt obligations and borrowing, consumer and commercial loans and investments in real property and equity.
Division 12 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act and the Insurance Companies Act to allow for the electronic delivery of certain documents to shareholders, members and policyholders without their consent, while ensuring that they receive paper copies if they request them.
Division 13 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to increase the equity threshold related to the public holding requirement from $2 billion to $4 billion and to make changes to other provisions that include that threshold.
Division 14 of Part 5 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act , the Insurance Companies Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act to, among other things,
(a) clarify the powers of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions in respect of the adherence by federally regulated financial institutions to their policies and procedures to protect themselves against threats to their integrity or security;
(b) provide the Superintendent of Financial Institutions with powers to issue directions of compliance in respect of unsafe or unsound practices in the conduct of the affairs of those financial institutions; and
(c) provide that the Superintendent of Financial Institutions is not prevented from disclosing information to any federal government agency or body for purposes related to the Superintendent’s regulation or supervision of financial institutions.
Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to raise the amount of funds that can be withdrawn immediately from a retail deposit account after the deposit of a cheque or other instrument and to remove the delay for the withdrawal of funds deposited by a cheque or other instrument that is not deposited in person.
Division 16 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to, among other things,
(a) prohibit the activation of certain capabilities for a personal deposit account in Canada without the express consent of the natural person in whose name the account is kept;
(b) permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to deactivate certain account capabilities;
(c) permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to adjust certain transaction limits on the account;
(d) require institutions to establish policies and procedures for detecting and preventing consumer-targeted fraud and mitigating its impacts; and
(e) require institutions and the Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to prepare annual reports on consumer-targeted fraud.
Division 17 of Part 5 amends the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act , the Bank Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to support the growth of federal credit unions, including by way of amalgamation or asset acquisition and by permitting them to engage in motor vehicle leasing in certain circumstances.
Division 18 of Part 5 amends the Special Economic Measures Act to, among other things,
(a) provide that the Minister of Finance must be consulted before an order or regulation identifying certain persons is made under subsection 4(1) of that Act;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations requiring financial institutions to provide to the Minister of Finance information on property that is in their possession or control and that is owned, held or controlled by a person, including a foreign state, identified under that Act and information on profits realized from such property; and
(c) authorize the Minister of Finance to make an order directing a financial institution to pay such profits to the Receiver General.
It also makes related and consequential amendments to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act .
Division 19 of Part 5 amends the Pension Act to, among other things,
(a) set out in a schedule to that Act the amounts of the basic pension payable during the period beginning on April 1, 1985 and ending on December 31, 2025;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to amend that schedule;
(c) define the term “province” for the purposes of paragraph 75(1)(b) of that Act; and
(d) update certain regulation-making powers.
It also amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act to provide that, beginning on January 1, 2027, certain benefits are to be adjusted only on the basis of the Consumer Price Index.
Finally, it amends the Department of Veterans Affairs Act and the Veterans Health Care Regulations to retroactively clarify the meaning of the term “province” with respect to the calculation of the accommodation and meals charge for the recipients of intermediate and long term care.
Division 20 of Part 5 retroactively amends the Veterans Well-being Regulations to specify that the first annual adjustment to certain amounts used in the calculation of the earnings loss benefit is to be prorated to the number of days remaining in the calendar year. It also authorizes the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the earnings loss benefit under the Veterans Well-being Act , as it read from time to time before April 1, 2019.
Division 21 of Part 5 amends the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act , among other things, to specify that claims for awards made under Part II of that Act are to be dealt with and determined by the Minister who administers the Pension Act . It also enacts related provisions.
Division 22 of Part 5 enacts the Canada Development Investment Corporation Act , which continues the Canada Development Investment Corporation and sets out its purpose to assist in the creation and development of businesses, resources, property and industries of Canada by providing advice and support to the Government of Canada and by making investments and managing assets that advance Canada’s economic growth and development. The Division also makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 23 of Part 5 amends the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act to require that an organization disclose to another organization an individual’s personal information, at the individual’s request, if both organizations are subject to a data mobility framework.
Division 24 of Part 5 amends the Broadcasting Act to provide that it is to be construed and applied in a manner that is consistent with the right to privacy of individuals.
Division 25 of Part 5 amends the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act to, among other things, reaffirm that security of the public is a key purpose of that Act, provide that the Minister of Health must establish and update a registry that will replace Schedules 1 to 4, add requirements for persons who carry out activities in relation to high risk human pathogens and toxins, increase the maximum penalties to which a person who commits an offence under that Act is liable and establish an administrative monetary penalty regime for certain contraventions of that Act or its regulations.
Division 26 of Part 5 amends the Customs Tariff to amend the definition “obsolete or surplus goods” to allow for the refund of duties paid in respect of certain goods that are donated to a registered charity.
Division 27 of Part 5 amends the Export and Import Permits Act to authorize the Governor in Council to add articles to the Export Control List and the Import Control List for reasons related to Canada’s economic security interests.
Division 28 of Part 5 amends the Aeronautics Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Minister of Transport to make interim orders that give effect to international standards, agreements, conventions and arrangements;
(b) extend the effective period of interim orders;
(c) modernize regulation-making powers respecting the development of, and compliance with, systems, processes, procedures, programs, plans and documents in relation to aviation safety and security;
(d) provide that air traffic service providers and certain maintenance organizations may be found vicariously liable for offences or violations;
(e) authorize the electronic service of documents;
(f) prohibit interference with the operation of a remotely piloted aircraft system unless authorized by the Minister;
(g) modernize the administrative monetary penalties framework and increase the maximum amounts for penalties and fines; and
(h) establish a regime for the voluntary provision of information related to aviation safety and security and set out limits on the disclosure and use of information provided under that regime.
It also makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act and a related amendment to the Budget Implementation Act, 2019, No. 1 .
Division 29 of Part 5 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the authority to make interim orders to give effect to international standards or ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations.
Division 30 of Part 5 amends the Judges Act to increase the number of salaries authorized for judges of the Court of Appeal for Ontario and judges of unified family courts in the provinces. It also reduces in a corresponding manner the number of salaries authorized for judges of superior courts in the provinces other than appeal courts.
Division 31 of Part 5 amends the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act to create a Schedule 2 to that Act, allow the Minister of Justice to add territorial bodies to that Schedule and to allow the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada to provide support services and facilities to those bodies.
Division 32 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to provide for the establishment of the Environmental Protection Tribunal of Canada and the transfer of the functions of the Chief Review Officer and review officers to that Tribunal. It also amends the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada Act to enable the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada to provide the Tribunal with any necessary support services and facilities and makes consequential amendments to other Acts.
Division 33 of Part 5 authorizes the taking of various measures with respect to the divestiture and dissolution of all or any part of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Freshwater Fish Marketing Act .
Division 34 of Part 5 repeals section 16 of the Government Annuities Improvement Act .
Division 35 of Part 5 repeals sections 195 and 196 of the Naskapi and the Cree-Naskapi Commission Act .
Division 36 of Part 5 amends the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act to deny the provision of financial assistance to qualifying students in relation to designated educational institutions outside Canada that are private and for-profit and offer courses at a post-secondary school level. It also amends that Act to empower the Minister of Employment and Social Development to suspend or deny the provision of financial assistance in certain circumstances in order to align with a provincial suspension or denial.
Division 37 of Part 5 amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act to
(a) clarify that all regulations made under that Act are to be made on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance;
(b) clarify that paragraph 36(3.01)(b) of that Act applies to donations that are not charitable donations; and
(c) prohibit the disclosure of reports, or the information contained in them, related to discrepancies in information discovered in the course of verifying the identity of persons having beneficial ownership or control of an entity.
It also amends the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations to
(a) clarify that paragraph 138(5)(b) of those Regulations applies to donations that are not charitable donations; and
(b) clarify the application of those Regulations to mortgage administrators, mortgage brokers and mortgage lenders.
Finally, it makes a consequential amendment to the Access to Information Act .
Division 38 of Part 5 amends the Borrowing Authority Act to increase the maximum amount of certain borrowings.
Division 39 of Part 5 amends the Canada Business Corporations Act , the Canada Cooperatives Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act to provide an additional ground on which the Director appointed under the Act in question may dissolve a corporation or a cooperative, as the case may be, namely, when the Director is notified that it is a “listed entity” as defined in subsection 83.01(1) of the Criminal Code .
Division 40 of Part 5 amends the Building Canada Act to add to the information that must be included in the public registry of national interest projects the extent to which each project can contribute to clean growth and to meeting Canada’s objectives with respect to climate change.
Division 41 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Energy Regulator Act to set the maximum duration of licences for the exportation of liquefied natural gas at 50 years.
Division 42 of Part 5 amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 to, among other things, remove the mandatory five-year limit for agreements made under subsection 9(5) or 10(3).
Division 43 of Part 5 amends the Competition Act to remove the requirement that the substantiation of representations about the environmental benefits of businesses or business activities must be done in accordance with internationally recognized methodology. It also amends that Act to exclude the application of the provision respecting those representations from proceedings before the Competition Tribunal that are initiated by a person other than the Commissioner of Competition.
Division 44 of Part 5 enacts the National School Food Program Act , which sets out the Government of Canada’s vision for the National School Food Program. That Act also sets out the Government of Canada’s commitment to maintaining long-term funding to be provided to the provinces, the territories and Indigenous peoples for the ongoing implementation and maintenance of the Program.
Division 45 of Part 5 enacts the Stablecoin Act , which imposes duties on persons that create stablecoins and make them available for purchase, directly or indirectly, by persons in Canada. That Act sets out the objects of the Bank of Canada in respect of stablecoin and requires the Bank to maintain a public registry of stablecoin issuers. That Act also addresses, among other things, the redemption of stablecoins by issuers, the reserve of assets that issuers must maintain to fulfill their redemption obligations and the policies that they must establish. The Division also makes consequential and related amendments to the Access to Information Act , the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and the Retail Payment Activities Act .

Concurrence in Vote 5—Department of National Defence

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member from Milton East—Halton Hills South.

I think we all know that fraud in Canada is a growing problem. Stories are now appearing in the media virtually every week. Data from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre shows that Canadians lost $638 million to fraud in 2024. Reported losses to the CAFC since 2021 have now surpassed $2 billion. The rate of frauds being reported remains low, with an estimated only 5% to 10% being reported, so the problem is understated and in the billions of dollars.

We know that fraudsters generally target the most vulnerable people among us, such as seniors, new Canadians and young people. Bank fraud in particular is a significant concern in Canada, yet investigations by financial institutions often end with banks' blaming the very customers who trusted them with protecting their money. This raises the issue of the proper responsibility of banks to their depositors and the role of the federal government in regulating or not regulating them properly.

I would like to share with the House some real examples that have been brought to my attention recently by constituents in Vancouver Kingsway. For case number one, I will read from the letter I received:

“In early September, my dad, a 67 year old retiree called me in a panic. He had just realized he had been scammed out of his entire life savings and more. He was involved in what we believe was a ‘pig butchering’ scam. He was told he was investing in cryptocurrency—he had a wallet which showed incredibly high returns. When he went to withdrawal, he was hit with yet another fee of $90,000 USD to do so. His ‘partner’ who was to be paying the fees to share in the investment suddenly said she didn't have anymore money. This is when he realized.

“...Going through the details of the scam ended up showing that my dad didn't purchase crypto in a typical way. He was directed to the bank to wire money to several different locations. Locally here in Vancouver, then to New York and then finally to Vietnam.

“My dad opened a new account at BMO in April 2025 and thus the transactions begun. Every 10-14 days my dad went to the same branch on Mainland Street in Yaletown and sent anywhere from $100,000-$300,000 USD to accounts based in Vietnam under the guise of ‘purchasing auto parts.’ Every single time he wire transferred the money, the same branch manager signed off on it. No questions asked. By the end of August he had drained most of his RRSPs, remortgaged his home, took out personal loans, and borrowed from family and friends. l'm dumbfounded by the fact that the branch manager at this location never noticed the red flags: a brand new customer, a senior retiree, purchasing nearly $2 million dollars in auto parts from a personal bank account.

“I filed a complaint against BMO.... They refuse to answer if my dad was ever reported to FINTRAC. They replied that he signed off on the wire transfers that stated if he was being coached into cryptocurrency he shouldn't go through with it—none of the wire transfers use that type of language. Further, BMO states that they have a policy in place for prevention of fraud with seniors—obviously this policy wasn't followed in this instance. There has been zero accountability for what happened from BMO. They have said they will not return or refund any of the money and that this was completely my dad's own doing.

“My dad died of a sudden fatal collapse on January 5th, 2026. Months of stress and uncertainty, embarrassment and emotional toll had taken place. He had nothing. Forced to sell his condo to pay off some of his debt but seemingly about to be homeless.

“Fraud is abundant. We read about it all the time. I simply don't understand how the bank could see such large sums of money to be transferred with no regard. And at this point, they simply do not care....

“But I do want something good to come out of his death—more people need to hear stories like this for real change to happen....

“The lack of responsibility by BMO has changed the course of my life. My dad will not get to watch [my or my sisters'] families grow up. He will never financially contribute towards us. We are now left with the bill of his death and bankrupting his estate. lt's a devastating end.”

Example number two is Mrs. L, a 79-year-old senior who was the victim of a devastating financial fraud that resulted in the loss of a significant portion of her retirement life savings. Fraudsters impersonated law enforcement and coerced her into selling her retirement investments in her registered retirement accounts and wiring the money abroad to them from local RBC and TD branches. She lost some $400,000 in her life savings. To add insult to injury, she now faces a significant tax liability from the CRA due to this, despite already having suffered a complete financial loss of much of her retirement savings. Because she withdrew RSP savings, which were then stolen, she now has to pay taxes on these monies, even though they have been lost to her.

The NDP recently moved seven amendments to Bill C-15, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 1, aimed at strengthening protections for Canadians targeted by bank-related fraud. Unfortunately, Liberals and Conservatives combined to defeat them, and we see nothing addressing this in these estimates. Our amendments would have required banks to reimburse customers who fall victim to consumer-targeted fraud, unless they have been grossly negligent in relation to that fraud. Banks would have also been required to report anonymized consumer-targeted fraud data, so we could get a better understanding of the scope of this problem. The Financial Consumer Agency of Canada would have been required to conduct regular unannounced audits of banks' anti-fraud practices and policies, publish detailed fraud statistics and make its annual fraud report public, so that we could make sure that banks are actually following through on the policies they claim to have. The amendments also sought to make decisions of the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments binding.

These measures were recommended by advocacy organizations, including Option consommateurs and Democracy Watch, which argued that without mandatory audits, transparency, and accountability mechanisms, existing anti-fraud rules would remain ineffective.

The United Kingdom recently brought in new rules requiring that a consumer who is a victim of a fraud known as an APP scam, which is a scam wherein the scammer convinces the victim to make a payment, must be reimbursed, unless there is gross negligence on their part. In Quebec, the Consumer Protection Act was recently amended to impose reimbursement obligations on financial institutions in cases of fraud involving a consumer's bank account.

I want to quote Democracy Watch, which noted this:

It is not enough to just require the banks to have policies and procedures in place. The Bank Act was changed in 2018 to add...two provisions requiring banks to have policies, procedures and training to ensure the financial interests of their customers are protected...but the FCAC was not required in those provisions to audit the banks to ensure they comply with those provisions and, as a result, the FCAC has done nothing to ensure they actually comply....

The new anti-bank account fraud measures will also have little effect unless the FCAC is required to conduct regular, unannounced audits and to prosecute and penalize violations...

Option consommateurs noted this:

We believe that an approach that holds banks more accountable will not only allow thousands of Canadians who are victims of fraud to be able to recover their money, but it will also decrease the occurrence of such fraud. By placing greater responsibility on banks, the legislative framework will incentivize these businesses to deploy the appropriate measures to prevent their losses.

The example of the United Kingdom is a clear illustration of this. According to the Payment Systems Regulator, following the entry into force of the new consumer protection framework, the number of claims for...fraud decreased by approximately 15% between October 2024 and June 2025, compared to the same period [the year before].

With the advent of AI and growing technology, the prospects of fraud growing in this country are chilling. Imagine a senior answering the phone and hearing the computer-generated voice of their bank manager or their grandchild, who is asking them to wire money somewhere. This is the kind of technology that exists now, yet we are operating on outdated legislation. Although the government did put a financial crimes agency in the budget, which is a good step forward, it can and should do much more to help protect Canadians from fraud in this country. New Democrats will certainly work together to help make that happen.

Opposition Motion—The Government's Fiscal Policies

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

Madam Speaker, this issue has to do with the business of supply, because we just voted supply for the project.

With Bill C‑15, the Minister of Transport callously decided to make people along the Alto corridor second-class citizens. He decided to take away their recourse and their right to question the need for expropriation for a train. Through his actions, the Minister of Transport is destroying what little social licence there was for this project.

People in my riding are being harassed by Alto. There have been unauthorized drone flights. Now they have stopped because they were not allowed in the first place. People from Alto are knocking on doors without identifying themselves and without offering a business card.

There are people in my riding who have been expropriated once already, who are familiar with expropriation and whose family or friends dealt with family tragedies such as suicides, broken families and depression. This is not ancient history. The last five pieces of land expropriated following the airport saga were only given back in 2024. That is what is happening with a train that does not exist and that has no business plan or cost-benefit analysis.

Bill C‑15 is an injustice. The people of Mirabel think that we need to scrap this project and start over from scratch.

Rail Transportation

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I am presenting 15 petitions, signed by a total of 3,357 Canadians, against the Alto high-speed rail project. I am being flooded with literally thousands of signatures on petitions on this subject. I have already tabled petitions on this topic from an additional 3,300 Canadians.

The petitioners are concerned that their land will be expropriated and their lives destroyed by this project that is going to pass through their communities. They are also painfully aware that once their land has been taken from them by the government, they and their children will then be sent the tax bill for their share of a project so expensive that it will cost $9,000 for every family of four nationwide.

Second, I am presenting the certificate for e-petition 7203, which I sponsored. It calls for the High-Speed Rail Network Act provisions of Bill C-15 to be stopped, the provisions that allow for an expedited expropriation process that will remove the right of appeal and guarantee that landowners get far less for their land than they ought to be getting; for the cessation of further advancement of the high-speed rail project; and for redirection by the federal government of investment toward improving higher-speed passenger rail service within existing rail corridors, which, as they note, can be done within the life of the current Parliament instead of in the year 2038.

E-petition 7203 gathered 17,531 signatures, and, in total, the petitions I am tabling today contain the signatures of over 20,000 Canadians who are opposed to the Alto rail project.

Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Chair, I realize the minister has been here for a couple of hours, but he has not answered very many questions, if any. I am hopeful he will answer this one.

Internal documents outline a strategy for massive station area land assembly stretching up to two kilometres around a station, explicitly based on the Hong Kong “rail plus property” real estate model. Since his bill, Bill C-15, fails to include land abandonment or buyback provisions, if the route changes in an Ottawa neighbourhood like Eastway Gardens, who keeps the excess land and development profits? Is it the government, Alto or the private consortium?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, on February 25, 2026, the minister voted on Motion No. 44, which would have deleted clause 191 from Bill C-15. Is that correct?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, it has been more than an hour that the minister has been here, and he has said an awful lot of things but has not answered our questions, and that trend continues.

Did the screen that the minister said was necessary to avoid a conflict of interest apply to clause 191 of Bill C-15?

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Chair, did the screen apply to Bill C-15?

Opposition Motion—Protection of Private Property Rights in Canada

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

Mr. Speaker, I know a lot of my Conservative friends are wondering about the expropriations built into Bill C-15 for Alto. That is basing it on what kind of title rights we have in this country. Nobody's title rights in fee simple are absolute vis-à-vis our own government, but they are absolute vis-à-vis potential indigenous title, which has not in any way been put forward.

As my hon. colleague from Winnipeg Centre says, there has been no case ever where indigenous title has resulted in fee simple title rights being lost for settler culture Canadians. Fee simple rights are only taken when a government expropriates for something big, like the Mirabel airport or what have you.

Housing

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to pursue a question I asked in question period on February 27. It was right after the British Columbia government came out with its budget. I have to say that I think every British Columbia member of Parliament was shocked. The B.C. NDP government cancelled a very important program: the community housing fund. The reason I raise this in the context of our federal Parliament is that obviously the Canadian government is making many commitments to build many Canadian homes. Housing starts are up. This is discussed, of course, in the spring economic update.

My concern, though, which was not properly addressed in question period, is that, yes, the federal government is providing funding to the B.C. government, but we have a real opportunity here that I hope the federal Minister of Housing will seize. The last statistic I can find since I asked the question, after the B.C. community housing fund was cancelled, is that the commitment from the federal government, out of the funds approved through Bill C-15, the budget implementation act's commitment of $15 billion to the Build Canada Homes agency, was that $170 million was to go to B.C. This is the latest statistic I can find of what is committed from the federal government to the B.C. government. To be clear, that is the total, which includes all kinds of housing: market housing, social housing, co-op housing and so on.

The opportunity here for the federal government is huge. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars that municipalities, local communities and non-profit associations have already spent in getting ready to build great housing. They have bought the land. They have hired the architects. They have cleared the studies. They have done the zoning. They are ready to roll, and suddenly, the B.C. government's decision to pull out of the funding has left thousands of potential homes for British Columbians in peril. There are big question marks now over many projects.

My plea to the government in pursuing this question tonight in Adjournment Proceedings is this: Set some clear requirements. Parties have the land. They are ready to roll. They have done their zoning. They have their permits. The plans are ready. It is just a question of a top-up from the federal government, specifically designed for non-profit housing in British Columbia. As I mentioned before in my question when I asked it in February, there are projects on Galiano Island and Mayne Island, and also in Saanich. The Prince George council member Cori Ramsay, who is the president of the Union of BC Municipalities, is saying the same thing. So many of these wonderful projects are going to fall through the cracks. We are ready to go.

We are looking for the federal government to commit to creating a special funding program, designed for B.C. in this moment and designed to capture those projects that are ready to roll, shovel-ready, but that may fall through the cracks and never get built unless the Minister of Housing, who is a British Columbian, can step up and design a project that gets the money flowing to build these homes for British Columbians.

Spring Economic Update 2026

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

I thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker.

Basically, the finance minister keeps saying that the world has changed. In his view, the world is always changing, so the situation is serious. Here is what has changed recently.

A little over two weeks ago, the U.S. president signed a new executive order changing the way tariffs are calculated on goods exported by Quebec and Canada. Previously, about 85% of our exports were protected under CUSMA. Today, a large number of goods are subject to 25% tariffs, even though they are covered by that agreement.

As a result, nearly 50% of exports from Quebec and Ontario are now subject to tariffs, according to a recent study by the University of Calgary. Business closures have already begun. We saw a critical situation from day one at BRP. There is the case of Meubles South Shore, and there are others. It is starting to look like a house of cards. We asked the government whether measures would be taken. Our job, as an opposition party, is to ask questions.

Two weeks ago in question period, we asked the Prime Minister what he planned to do about this new way of calculating tariffs, which means that we are no longer protected under CUSMA. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister had absolutely no idea what we were talking about in question period. He was honest and upfront about it. He told us that he would get back to us with an answer. We gave him a week.

Last week, in question period, we asked the Prime Minister what he was going to do since businesses had started to close. My Liberal, Conservative and Bloc Québécois colleagues whose ridings are home to an industrial base are getting messages from businesses that have been struggling over the past two or three weeks and that are concerned. Many of them are SMEs that have exhausted their line of credit. The Prime Minister's response was to wait for the economic update because it would provide solutions. I have not slept for a week. I have never experienced such suspense in my life. I thought that he was going to sort this problem out.

I read the economic update, and then I read it again. I told myself that the Prime Minister could not have forgotten our businesses, but he has forgotten them. Even though they are covered by CUSMA, they are currently facing 25% tariffs. In light of this, we are calling for a very short-term wage subsidy.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have announced measures related to workforce training. While it is true that this measure could be beneficial in other provinces, workforce training was fully devolved to the Quebec government several decades ago. The workforce training strategy is managed in Quebec City. Vocational training is managed in Quebec City. Sector-specific internships for the job market are administered there.

To quickly train workers in fields that are in high demand today, we need to send money to Quebec. Ottawa, however, is averse to sending money to Quebec, since it likes to meddle in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. I see the Minister of Health, who knows I like her. Her department really likes to do that. At the Standing Committee on Finance, we are conducting a study on spending authority, and the other side does not even know what they are talking about. It is disconcerting. So there are no measures for businesses.

The reality is that the United States is going to remain our biggest trading partner for a long time. This is especially true for the SMEs that are affected by these new tariffs. Large companies, particularly those in the aluminum sector, have the industrial capacity to redirect their exports to other markets, sometimes quite quickly, even if that is not ideal. However, SMEs, like the ones back home on Curé‑Labelle Boulevard in Mirabel and elsewhere, do not have the capacity to do that. Their entire bureaucratic and technical infrastructure is designed to export their products to the United States, and they do not have the resources to protect themselves.

These companies are not oil companies. My colleague spoke earlier about subsidies for oil companies. They are not big banks. They cannot afford to hire lobbyists to convince the government to give them tax credits. They have been forgotten.

The government is bragging about a strong economic record in this update. We are being told that exports to the United States have fallen by 10%, which is significant, given that this partner accounts for 80% of our exports. Canada is a small, very open economy. We are being told, quite rightly, that exports to countries other than the United States have increased by nearly 30% or 40%.

That is good news, especially considering that the Prime Minister has not signed a new trade agreement with a single one of those countries. The government is looking for new export opportunities. The Prime Minister has travelled, he has burned fuel, he has played king all over the world. One might therefore think he has signed agreements. However, we have not increased our export opportunities in a single country because the Prime Minister has not signed any trade agreements. What has increased are oil and gas exports to Europe and Asia.

Does anyone know what good came from this strong economic record? Aluminum exports to Europe increased. Our aluminum producers sent their aluminum to Europe because the Prime Minister was unable to solve the problem with the United States. That is what he is covering up.

The government says that the deficit is lower than expected. That is the other good news from the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. It is true. The deficit was $11.5 billion less than anticipated for last year. Let me remind the House that the big banks have lowered their economic growth forecasts for next year and for the year after that. That is last year's deficit. It is true that there was more growth. We acknowledge that. There was also more inflation. Across-the-board price increases generate revenue for the government. However, tax credits for batteries and tax credits for investments in clean energy account for two-thirds of the amount mentioned by the Minister of Finance. These tax credits went unclaimed because of insufficient investments, yet the Minister of Finance portrays himself as Mr. Investment.

The natural disaster fund accounts for the rest. Maybe the Minister of Finance did not do enough rain dancing, but it seems that there were not enough floods and forest fires this year to use up the $7.5 billion that was allocated.

This means we need to focus on the real issues. There is not really anything new in this document. I can show the document, since it has been tabled, so I will take the opportunity to do so. There is not much that is new, just some promising measures that have already been announced. The government deserves some credit when it develops strategies and takes the initiative, so we commend it for doing so.

There is the national defence strategy, the national auto strategy and the national infrastructure strategy. There is the national critical minerals strategy, to which we got phosphate added as part of Bill C-15. The government had overlooked this, but it had the good sense to accept our budget amendment. There is also a national strategy for nature. What is missing? There is still no national aerospace strategy.

The industry as a whole has been calling for such a strategy for two or three decades. People who truly know what is happening, those who manufacture airplanes, helicopters and parts, those who are in my riding within walking distance of my office, on the south shore and in Dorval, are calling for a national strategy. Why? The answer is so that they can develop the products that the Department of Defence and the government need, because it is a long-cycle industry. We need a strategy so that, when the time comes to order products, we can do so.

Giving press conferences like the Prime Minister and other Liberal members are doing is not enough. Right now, they are giving press conferences. Unions come to us after meeting with Liberal members. They bring up the issue with the Liberals, who then tell them that it would be unfair to the aerospace industry in Winnipeg and Manitoba if there were a Quebec-based strategy. That is what Liberal members have told our unions in Quebec. That would be useful.

I listened carefully to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. It is not always easy, but I listened to him. He said that he wants the Bloc Québécois to side with the government for once, that it would be good if the Bloc Québécois were on the government's side. He said that Bloc MPs are very partisan, that they are very difficult and very narrow-minded. It takes two to play that game. It takes two to come up with proposals that will shape our industry. Why should we be cozying up to the Liberals when they turn a deaf ear to our proposals?

I will explain why there is no aerospace strategy. We know what is happening in Ontario's auto sector. A lot of the manufacturing workforce is experiencing major structural problems. We also know the government would prefer to move a segment of the industry, possibly to Ontario. I do not know if that is true, but I do know that people are worried about it and that there is no strategy.

That is what is lacking in the economic update. Ottawa bureaucracy is out of touch with on-the-ground realities. There are plenty of examples like that. The Minister of Finance says we need to get on board. Every time there is a budget or an economic update, we make demands. Those demands are costed. They are self-funded, five-year proposals. We make those demands even though we know we will never govern. I can assure everyone that I always renew my driver's licence. I know I will never have a car service. I will keep driving my own car. That is fine. I sit down. The entire Bloc Québécois caucus sits down, and sometimes we come up with what everyone acknowledges are the best campaign platform budgets. That is what happened last time.

The first thing we are asking for is that subsidies to oil and gas companies be eliminated. That is step one. That amounts to $10 billion a year. Imagine how many school food programs could be funded with that money instead of propping up oil companies, which have no problem surviving these days. We never received a response to our request, which is entirely reasonable, rational and in the public interest. Another thing we are asking for is that the digital services tax be reinstated. That is worth $7.5 billion over five years. I see some folks over there nodding or frowning. The Liberals said they did it for the good of Canada. I will quote the government, which said recently that it would not pay an entry fee to negotiate with the Trump administration. The Liberals said that. They said they are proud and they are building Canada strong.

We know that they are building Canada strong. We are a little tired of hearing it. In fact, we do not know when this Canada strong is going to get here. They keep telling us that they are not up for paying any entry fees and will not make any concessions ahead of the negotiations. However, the first thing that the Prime Minister did when he came to power was to make concessions and bow down before the Trump administration. The government wants to build Canada strong. It wants to take a stand and show that it does not pay entry fees to negotiate. In that case, it needs to reverse course on its bad decision and reinstate the digital services tax. If Liberal members want to be proud Canadians, they should behave like it. It seems they do not, however. Meanwhile, our media is losing its fight for survival.

Let us talk about the media. There is a crisis in the media sector. It is not me saying this, it is the Minister of Finance, on page 107 of his economic update. It is a good page. I really liked it. The minister says: “Broadcast journalism in particular is a key part of our community fabric.” Let me stress the word “key”. I like the Minister of Finance. He is a revolutionary. He told us about “the government's intention to seek the views of Canadians and stakeholders on extending the Canadian Journalism Labour Tax Credit”. Now that is a revolution. If the Minister of Finance had been around during the French Revolution, he would have set up a booth across from the Bastille and conducted a survey on the price of brioche, and France would now be under King Louis XLIX. That is what it means to do nothing for Quebec. If members want concrete examples, that is exactly what we have.

We are calling for some kind of emergency wage subsidy for businesses. We have been meeting with business leaders who are telling us they need to keep their employees on the payroll. Some companies are productive and can export if there is a free trade deal. The Prime Minister keeps saying that he will sign an agreement eventually. For these people, the solution is not to send them back to school. The solution is to lower production costs for these businesses through wage subsidies and to cushion the productivity hit caused by the tariffs until the situation improves, so that our regions do not shut down. The Liberals are refusing. I wondered why, because it is a good proposal. We are reaching out to the Minister of Finance.

I thought that the government might be waiting for Cúram to be ready, so it could distribute the wage subsidies through Cúram. Apparently, it has money for Cúram, but not for wage subsidies.

Let us talk about employment insurance, which is designed to help people get through a crisis. We are currently in a crisis. The minister tells us that the world has changed and that we are in a crisis. The unemployment rate has held up a little better than expected. We were expecting worse. We need an EI system that covers more than half of all workers. A little over half of Canadian workers are covered by EI. No one here in the House would be able to renew their mortgage if they told their lender that they have fire insurance that has a 50:50 chance of covering them. That does not happen, yet we are willing to subject workers to that.

We asked for temporary measures, and they were put in place. Those temporary measures were so necessary that they were renewed. There are pilot projects in the regions that have been going on for so many years now that they have become almost permanent. If anyone wants proof of why EI reform is needed, there it is.

I want to talk about the $814 million that was stolen from Quebec. I would think this is of interest to the minister. I have read the Prime Minister’s book; it occupies a place of pride on my bookshelf. It is called Values. Before entering politics, the Prime Minister used to travel around, talking about his values. He spoke about the fact that values are more important than the market. He spoke about the fact that having a market economy and capitalism without values leaves us, as a society, without a compass. Then, he entered politics and bought votes. What happened to values?

The Prime Minister decided to refund a carbon tax. We know how it worked. To ensure it was socially acceptable, it was refunded before people had even paid it. He decided to send refunds to seven provinces for money that had never been paid, all in order to buy votes.

Quebeckers paid for that. As the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, and as officials from the Department of Finance told us in committee, Quebec is owed $814 million. Where is that $814 million? It is everywhere except in Quebec at the moment. It seems to me that would be a good step to take.

Let us talk about health transfers. There is no increase in health transfers. The minister is happy because he was prepared to run an $80-billion deficit. However, we are calling for increases in health transfers. We see the need in our hospitals. We know that system costs are rising by 6% or 7% per year as the population ages. We know that no government ever introduced or implemented as many programs based on the federal spending power as the Trudeau government. That was the Trudeau government's choice. Meanwhile, people are languishing in hospital hallways and unable to get surgery. Is federal funding the only problem? It may not be the only problem, but it is definitely a substantial factor, and it is part of the solution. We also know there will be cuts starting in the next fiscal year. There is no mention of that.

There is also the issue of the guaranteed income supplement. The Liberals talk about affordability, but there is nothing in there to address affordability. The Liberals increased the grocery cheque, which is great. We welcomed that. They based it on the GST rebate, which takes into account the family structure, the family benefits that people receive, and so on.

However, as far as the government is concerned, there are still good seniors and bad seniors. The legal retirement age in Canada is 65. If that has changed, no one has told me. As far as the government is concerned, there are good retirees and bad retirees. There are people aged 75 and older whose pension increased by 10%, and there are people aged 65 to 74, who are told to go away and wait another 10 years before becoming eligible for their old age security benefits. This is discrimination between two classes of seniors. The Liberals say they want to help people with the cost of living. Seniors aged 65 to 74 are the missing group, but there is nothing about them. The Minister of Finance and National Revenue tells us that we are just too partisan and that we should support the government, which wants to take care of seniors.

There is also the increase in the Canada public transit fund. There are problems with public transit, and infrastructure investment is needed. This will promote green and sustainable growth. Half the funds went to Ontario. First, the Liberals cut the fund, reducing it from $30 billion to $25 billion over 10 years. Then they gave half the funds to Ontario. Furthermore, since this falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, there is yet another standoff and everything is taking forever. Rather than being paid out for public transit projects, the money that Quebec is owed is being held up here. Perhaps the Liberals will put it into their sovereign wealth fund. I do not know what they are going to do with that money, but it is taking forever.

Let us talk about loan guarantees for the forestry sector. We have a forestry sector that pays countervailing duties in advance. Often, years later, forestry companies will win in court. They will get reimbursed for those countervailing duties, but in the meantime, they are unable to get credit because they cannot use the money they paid the Americans, those same Americans that the Prime Minister calls our friends in his public communications. Forestry companies cannot go and get that money. We need help for the forestry industry. Where is the help for the forestry industry? The minister seems to think that the world has changed, but nothing has changed for the forestry sector. That is what is happening.

Quebec also wants to be reimbursed for the money that it spent on asylum seekers. I am talking about the $733 million that the Quebec National Assembly is unanimously calling for. Is that partisan or do the 125 people who sit in the blue room in Quebec mean nothing? It is the red room these days, but it will be blue again eventually.

The Liberals are telling us that productivity and innovation are important, but they are closing agricultural research centres in Quebec, in the Minister of Government Transformation's own riding. I do not know what he wants to transform in the agricultural industry, but things are not going well. What is more, the salaries of these researchers amount to about $28 million over five years. For an organization the size of the federal government, that is peanuts. There is nothing in this budget to address that.

I do not know who is being partisan about any of that. I do not know what we are supposed to expect from an economic update like the one today. We need to help people, we need to be working on the ground, we need to be listening and we need to propose measures. The government's answer to all that is a sovereign wealth fund. Yesterday, the Liberals announced that they are going to create a sovereign wealth fund. They went to HEC Montréal for the announcement and put on a show. The audience was clapping like penguins. We asked questions. They would not give us any details, because they said we would get the details today when the economic update was tabled. We opened the economic update document and went to the section on the sovereign wealth fund. We could not contain our excitement. However, what we read was that we are going to get more news in a few months' time. There were no details, apart from one new detail about the sovereign wealth fund: The projects that it will fund are the ones that have been approved by the Major Projects Office, which the Prime Minister already basically controls. They are saying that the fund will be independent, but only just independent enough to say yes to the Prime Minister.

Eariler, we asked officials if there would be an independent investment committee. They answered that they did not know, that the board would no doubt be independent, but that the rest remained to be seen. They have no idea how much it will cost to finance this fund. They do not know what type of bond they will fund it with. They do not know what the governance rules will be. They do not even know how much private investment will be mobilized. They are putting in $25 billion, and we want to know how much private investment that will pull in. They do not know, because they only thought of it yesterday. We are supposed to not be partisan and to just clap for this, but these are valid questions. By all accounts, this fund will not be independent from the Prime Minister's Office, because he is the one selecting the major projects. They wind up on his desk, and he is the one who signs off on them. We are being told that the capital of the people who put money into the sovereign wealth fund will be guaranteed and that they will not be taking on any risk, but the projects we are talking about are so risky that nobody is willing to invest in them unless the government gets involved. Who will end up paying for these projects?

Sovereign wealth funds exist all over the world, and there are all kinds of them. Norway has one. It invests in foreign currencies, something Canada should have done long ago to avoid Dutch disease. The Netherlands' oil exports are killing its manufacturing sector. In Canada, we have never really had one, apart from a similar example in Alberta. Some sovereign wealth funds are used to influence geopolitics, like in China, where the Chinese are buying up infrastructure. Some sovereign wealth funds are used to trade on the foreign exchange market. Quebec's generations fund was a type of sovereign wealth fund. In every case, there was always a clear reason for establishing the fund.

The Minister of Finance and National Revenue has set up a fund to make an announcement. At some point, we will need to know why he is establishing this sovereign wealth fund. I am curious, and we have questions. We are an opposition party, and our job is to ask questions. The minister's job is to answer them. Eventually, he will have to answer this.

If anybody is wondering whether we are happy with this economic update, the answer is no, because it does not update anything. We knew it would not be a big document because we had had discussions with the department. We were not expecting a budget, but we were expecting something, at least. If the minister just wanted to upset everyone by announcing the deficit number, we could have waited for the official numbers in October. We will get them in our inbox.

We cannot be faced with such huge changes in tariffs and in the geopolitical landscape of global trade and then be told that the only solution is to encroach on Quebec's jurisdictions. The Liberals have a majority, as everyone knows. We want to contribute, and we always have. We want to make proposals. However, when someone make a suggestion, someone else has to listen. Someone needs to take action. Someone on the other side of the House needs to be sensitive enough to recognize that every member on this side of the House was elected by folks who deserve to be represented and whose views deserve to be heard. I think the government needs to work on its ability to listen, and I think that may well be the most pressing challenge facing this new majority government.

Canadian Space Launch Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, for the most part, we agree on implementing such a system, as we said earlier. However, my concern is that there seems to be a tendency to waive application of the law every time new measures are introduced. It is tiresome.

As we all know, Bill C‑5 became an act that enables the government to designate projects of national interest. It allows the government to override all existing laws. We also know that Bill C‑15 took away citizens' rights with respect to expropriation. The government also got rid of the environmental assessment for the high-speed rail project. Now it is pushing to exempt certain launch-related decisions from Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada review.

I would like my colleague to comment on this. The government seems to view laws as obstacles to progress, but laws are the legislative framework we have established over decades to provide the public with safety and stability.

Consideration of Government Business No.9

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to add my voice to Government Motion No. 9, which addresses composition of standing committees of the House of Commons and joint committees.

Over the course of this debate, it has been undisputable that committees are microcosms of this place in form and in function, both reflecting party standings in the House and performing the necessary duties to scrutinize legislation, propose solutions and represent the diverse views of Canadians. The granularity of this work being undertaken in committees is what makes us more informed, effective and thoughtful legislators, better equipped to support Canadians. The government has taken a balanced approach to additions to standing committee and joint committee compositions that we are discussing today.

This routine motion in response to the changing landscape here in the House would add to the voices currently at committee. I would point members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, first edition, which makes it clear on page 819: “Where the governing party has a majority in the House, it will also have a majority on every House committee.” There is an undeniable, long-standing principle in Parliament: A party that has a majority of seats in the House also has a majority in committees. This is at the core of our Westminster system of government.

The motion proposed by the government reflects how things are done in the House of Commons. The numbers on committees ensure that the government has a majority and the chair of the committee does not routinely need to vote to break a tie, because the number in the House means that the Speaker does not routinely need to vote to break a tie. The makeup of the House of Commons has changed since committees were formed almost a year ago. The government has gone from a minority government to a majority. Naturally, this means a change must occur to the makeup of committees to reflect this change.

The motion would not put opposition parties in a position to lose representation. Current committee members of both the government and the opposition would remain unaffected and would be able to continue the important work they have undertaken over the course of the last year. The government recognizes the time these members have invested in familiarizing themselves with their respective committee subject matter and in building trusting relationships with stakeholders and members of all political stripes.

Do my colleagues across the way not agree that having more voices on standing committees would add to the diverse perspectives being shared during a committee's deliberations? Do they not agree that an additional voice from the Prairies or Atlantic Canada, from rural or urban centres, would better inform our studies, reports and amendments?

I have heard my opposition colleagues speak to what they say Canadians voted for in the last election. The message our government was elected on was to build Canada strong. I recall conversations at the door about a year ago being rooted in addressing affordability concerns, managing geopolitical threats and investing in Canada's future. These are the exact issues that committees are expected to undertake. They are a mechanism to further dive into these issues, propose solutions and improve legislation.

I am splitting my time with the hon. member for Halifax. Usually I am the one to drop that note on other members' desks. I apologize. I am sure the opposition would much rather hear from the member for Halifax than the member for St. Catharines.

We have seen collaboration take place since the start of this Parliament, as the government has thoughtfully considered ideas and supported amendments brought forward by opposition parties. Members of the finance committee studied, in depth, Bill C-15, the 2025 budget bill, and proposed amendments. The government brought forward amendments to address stakeholder concerns and, without hesitation, supported opposition party amendments to provide more security to consumers and ensure guardrails on ministerial power.

Even going back to my days in the 42nd Parliament, I did not see a bill go through without amendments by the opposition accepted. This level of collaboration has also been shown on legislation brought forward by private members, as was the case at the public accounts committee when government members proposed reasonable amendments to ensure the scheme and policy objectives of Bill C-230, the creation of a debt forgiveness registry, would work effectively if established.

I have heard claims made against Government Motion No. 9 as changing the checks and balances on government. I find this unreasonable for the simple fact that the mechanisms that hold government to account remain unchanged; ministerial appearances before committees, opposition day motions, the study of estimates and question period are just a few examples. On the valuable studies committees undertake and reports they present, if a member feels that their concerns have not been adequately reflected in a report, they have an opportunity to present the House with a supplemental report to ensure their views are on the parliamentary record.

Last spring, colleagues on both sides of the aisle welcomed many new faces to our caucuses who were eager to represent their constituents, share ideas and work hard to improve the lives of Canadians. Allowing more members on committees gives our colleagues the opportunities to be better legislators. As my colleagues have previously stated, this is a time of unity, to bring Canadians together, to represent the needs of our communities and to listen to one another so we can build Canada strong.

Demonstrating to Canadians that we, as political parties with differing views on matters of policy, can come together, working collaboratively and constructively, is of utmost importance given the challenges we face. We should define ourselves in this time of crisis by the things that unite us, not by those that divide us. This is a critical time in our nation's history, when we will, hopefully, define ourselves not by our partisan interests but rather by how we work together to deliver what the country needs in spite of our partisan interests. We can disagree, but we must rise above pettiness to deliver on our promise to put Canadian interests first.

In my speech, I have noted times that we worked together, whether on government legislation or in private members' business. Let these examples be the rule, not the exception.

I have listened to the debate for a bit, and I am genuinely surprised. Many of these Conservative members were here in the 41st Parliament, and the things they are proposing right now did not exist then, when the Conservatives held the majority. I believe the previous speaker was a member of Prime Minister Harper's office, and I doubt he was proposing the things in the PMO that he is coming to the House today to deliver.

This is how Parliament has worked in this country. The composition of the House has changed, and as such, the committees—

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Ponoka—Didsbury, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is always great to get up in the House and represent the fine people of Ponoka—Didsbury. I consider myself fairly right-wing, but my colleague from Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee is making me look like a moderate in the House today. I unfortunately do not have time to go back and alter my speech in order to keep pace with my new-found best friend. We are going to be spending a lot more time together, based on my assessment of what he had to say about the government across the way.

It is important to speak to this piece of legislation, Bill C-22, the lawful access act. It is a bit weird to stand here, because it feels like we were just talking about this last fall. This is the second kick at the cat for this piece of legislation for the government. The Liberals tried to have a similar set of laws passed in a sweeping omnibus bill, Bill C-2, but that bill did not pass, and now it seems it is being reintroduced by the government. We know that it is coming on the heels of what was a minority Parliament and is going to turn into a majority Parliament here soon. One always has to keep that in mind. If this bill is crafted the same way that the majority government here was crafted, there is no reason at all to think that this is not a sneaky piece of legislation.

The Liberals laud their talking points and their PMO comms lines that this bill would help keep Canadians safe and get crime under control. The only reason crime is not under control is that we have had 11 years of Liberals across the way. If Bill C-22 were really about law and order, limiting crime or protecting victims, Conservatives would be wholly in support of this piece of legislation, but it is actually not about any of that. It is about power, it is about control, and it has a very deeply Orwellian feel to it.

Conservatives in this country have always believed in law and order. A vital and fundamental pillar of what it means to be a Conservative is to believe in and respect the rule of law in this country. We used to actually have governments that followed the laws as well. It would be nice if we got back to that at some point in time.

The governing Liberals have had many opportunities over the last 11 years to show us that they also want to see a reduction in crime, but every chance that we put in front of this Parliament, they seem to vote against. The Liberals have an ardent history of refusing bail reform and embracing catch-and-release style legislation. Now, after a decade, they expect the opposition members to believe that they are actually serious about cracking down on crime. Well, I am not buying it.

Last week, we debated Bill C-25, which would amend the Canada Elections Act. One of the objectives of that bill is to prevent foreign interference. During debate of that bill, I used the example of the 700 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps members who are freely living in Canada today. The government will not deport them and will not put them in jail. They are here fundraising, conducting business and harming our country every single day. The Liberals cannot say that they are serious about dealing with foreign interference if they do not deport the terrorists and criminals living in our country. They cannot say they are serious about crime and protecting Canadians without deporting these same terrorists or criminals from the country as well. They cannot have it both ways. That is because the Liberals are not serious about crime.

The Liberals are serious, however, about seizing control and having more power for themselves and their government. We know that much for sure. On Friday, my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands—Rideau Lakes referred to Bill C-22 as “Bill C-2 redo”, and he is exactly right.

Last fall, the Liberals put forward Bill C-2, the strong borders act, which fell short of protecting Canadians while overreaching in many areas of jurisdiction where it did not need to, like authorizing law enforcement to open up people's mail and inspect it without any due process at all. There was severe push-back on this, not only from the opposition but from hundreds of advocacy groups, who stood firmly against this legislation because of the risks it would pose to the civil liberties of the Canadian public. The Conservatives successfully blocked Bill C-2, stopping the Liberals from limiting the use of cash in transactions, opening the mail without any oversight whatsoever, and demanding that any service providers, including hospitals, financial institutions and probably even one's local dry cleaning store, disclose user data without any judicial oversight.

Bill C-22 removed some of these proposed provisions that we opposed, but reintroduced some of the proposed parts of Bill C-2 that were rejected when the Liberals held their rightful minority government. They have since reintroduced this bill, now that they know they are going to have the majority of votes in this place. It seems like an awfully convenient opportunity, does it not?

We Conservatives support giving law enforcement officers the tools they need to combat crime and keep communities safe, particularly as threats and dangers evolve in the digital age, but we also believe that there need to be strong safeguards accompanying these powers.

There also need to be clear limits and independent oversight to protect the rights and freedoms of the people here in Canada. Bill C-2 was a failed piece of legislation that the opposition could not and did not support because not only did it fail to adequately address the criminal element in our society, but it infringed on the freedoms and the rights of Canadians in an unjustifiable way.

Now the Liberals seek to reintroduce many of the rejected measures of Bill C-2 in this bill today. They rebranded their failed legislation as Bill C-22 and have brought it back to this very House with their illegitimately obtained, like I said, soon-to-be majority here in the House. This should alarm Canadians, especially the 11-plus million Canadian voters who did not actually vote for a Liberal candidate in the last election.

Our caucus has been very clear in where we stand on the Liberals' obsession with big, bloated and powerful government: It is unnecessary and is a gross misuse of power.

Bill C-22 focuses specifically on telecommunications and Internet service providers while creating oversight for ministerial orders. The Liberals have already banned news from being reported on Meta. Why do they need access to Canadians' information through the Internet and telecommunications providers? Will the personal information of Canadians be shared with the government through this bill, like it would have been under Bill C-2? The government will not tell us. Can any member sitting on the government benches today give me an answer to that? If they could, they probably would not. If they did have an answer, chances are it would be wrong.

Keeping Canadians safe is just a mere disguise for the folks across the way. The Liberals have had over a decade to keep Canadians safe, and they have continuously let crime get worse. The Liberals say that Bill C-22 is needed to keep up with the rapid growth of our world's digital environment and to help keep Canadians safe, but it makes me wonder if this is actually true. I would say that in some cases it is not. Why is this? It is because the Liberals have voted down every piece of crime-reducing legislation the Conservatives have brought to the House since this Parliament commenced last May.

The Liberals have repeatedly ignored the calls of every single premier in Canada who asked for bail reform. They refused to appoint judges, so violent criminals are having their cases dismissed and timed out. This is not about crime reduction for the Liberals across the way. This is all about having an excuse and a reason to seize power and control.

Even CBC pundit Andrew Coyne, known for his staunch Conservative support, and I am kidding of course, said last week that the Prime Minister has an “autocratic streak a mile wide,” and he is showing that now. Coyne said that during a minority Parliament. How bad will it actually get in a majority parliament? It is all about control, about central control by the central banker.

Bill C-2 was about control by letting law enforcement open our mail. Bill C-9 would control what religious people are allowed to say out loud or how texts are supposed to be read. Bill C-22 would control the privacy rights of Canadians through increased government surveillance and access to information.

We know this because the Liberals have a track record of these power grabs, such as changes they proposed to make to the Standing Orders in 2016. I do not know if there are a lot of people here today who remember that, but I remember it. They were going to basically take control of this place. They did not want an opposition; they wanted an audience.

There was the former prime minister's interference in the SNC-Lavalin scandal in 2019 and subsequent firing of the first indigenous female justice minister in Canadian history. As well, we see the consistent cutting, through time allocation, of debates on important pieces of legislation. There were gag orders on government watchdogs, as well as the unnecessary invocation of the Emergencies Act in 2022, which saw the Liberals freeze the bank accounts of hundreds of Canadians.

There was the expansion of cabinet authority provided in Bill C-5. Bill C-15 gives ministers of the Crown permission to exempt individuals and organizations of their choosing from any federal law they want, including the Criminal Code. Now there is online surveillance and access to Canadians' information.

Every time the Liberals are tasked with solving a problem, they always choose to assert total control and dominance over the situation. They grab power for power's sake. They control people's taxes, finances, what they say, the religious texts they read aloud, the firearms they are allowed to hunt with, the things they need to believe to qualify for Canada's summer jobs money and the salmon they allowed to fish for on the west coast.

It is all about control. It is always overkill. It is always too much. It is always over the top. It never solves the problem. Then again, one cannot be the problem and the solution at the same time. Bill C-22 is of course no different.

The Conservatives have put forward so many pieces of legislation to crack down on crime and protect Canadians, but the Liberals continue to vote us down in favour of their soft-on-crime policies that repeatedly let violent offenders out on bail time and time again.

The government does not need to infringe on the rights of Canadians to solve the problem of surging crime. That problem is solved and Canadians are protected by putting violent offenders in jail, strengthening bail laws and deporting non-citizens who are guilty of committing violent crimes here in Canada. I do not see any of that in this legislation. It is because the Liberals are not serious about fixing the problem. They are only serious about garnering more control for themselves and their friends, and taking Canadians' tax dollars and putting it on their—

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mirabel, who is also often my friend.

As we know, gas prices have skyrocketed since the start of Donald Trump's and Israel's war against Iran. The military operation, which began on February 28, led Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, that handles 20% of global oil. The U.S. forces had anticipated this and warned that it would happen, and it did.

Today, we are dealing with the Conservative motion, and the Prime Minister just announced that he is suspending the excise tax until Labour Day, which will cost about $2.5 billion. This is a blanket measure, but a targeted one might have been a better idea.

In today's motion, the Conservatives are proposing a measure with a total annual cost of $13 billion, which would increase the deficit by 20%. Given the current state of public finances, more targeted measures should have been proposed, ones that cost less and have the most impact on the cost of living.

Furthermore, the calculations in the motion are ridiculous. For example, the motion estimates that eliminating fuel standards would save seven cents per litre. However, that is completely untrue, because with today's high oil prices, biofuels now cost about the same as fossil fuels, so there are no extra savings to be made on that front. This idea that we would save seven cents per litre is far-fetched. I would also like to point out that Quebec has its own standards.

Basically, what they are proposing here is that, since the price of oil and gas is rising, we should consume more of it. What a brilliant idea.

In their motion, the Conservatives also propose eliminating the industrial carbon tax. However, as they themselves indirectly acknowledge in their motion, this measure would not even result in a savings of 1¢ per litre. It is nothing more than a gift to the oil companies. Oil companies have production costs, and the price, which is determined globally, is rising. Consequently, oil companies are making more profit, and if we were to eliminate the industrial carbon tax for oil companies, they would receive yet another windfall that would fill the gap and remove any incentive to pollute less. As I said, the price of crude oil depends on global market prices.

I would caution the government and the Conservatives when it comes to the excise tax. Many experts, including Luc Godbout, believe that this is not the right course of action, even temporarily. A few months ago, Mr. Godbout said that we need to resist the temptation to lower the gas tax for either budget-balancing or environmental reasons. As members know, it will be hard to reinstate this tax later because Canadians will have to absorb the increase. As I said, the government needs to take targeted measures, which are more effective. However, it would seem that both sides of the House would prefer to take broad measures.

Is it wise to allow as much pollution as there is in Donald Trump's America, in other words, unlimited pollution? As members know, President Trump announced the repeal of the vehicle efficiency standard that has steadily increased vehicle range per gallon, as they say south of the border. In Canada, we refer to the number of litres per kilometre. I would remind members that this standard was introduced well before the government's commitment to address climate change. The corporate average fuel economy program, or CAFE, was adopted in 1975 to make the United States less dependent on foreign oil. At the time, vehicles averaged only 13 miles per gallon. That is why it was introduced.

Abolishing such a standard encourages manufacturers to sell larger, more polluting vehicles, since selling those vehicles is more lucrative. It also makes industry and consumers more vulnerable to price shocks and oil shocks. In the long run, consumers are the ones who lose out, because Donald Trump's reasoning, like that of the Conservatives today, neglects the savings that come from energy efficiency, in addition to completely ignoring the costs related to health and the environment.

A few weeks ago, during our last sitting week, the Conservatives proposed removing standards and incentives for the electrification of transportation. The party is against high-speed rail. We are in favour, but with reservations about how the expropriation will be done, considering the safeguards that were removed in Bill C‑15. Through all of this, the Conservatives are trying to keep us completely dependent on oil by opposing any other solution. That is their response to the current skyrocketing prices. It is something to think about.

American economist Paul Krugman wrote a blog post on this issue today. He points out that soaring oil and gas prices, combined with the threat of shortages, highlights the risks of relying on fossil fuels. He demonstrates that economies that are more reliant on oil and gas have been more impacted by the soaring prices than those that use other sources. I would therefore like to repeat my question: Is the solution to remain reliant on fossil fuels?

Paradoxically, Krugman explains that while Trump cancelled the previous administration's plan to develop more renewable energy, his adventurism in Iran has sparked a global rush to invest in solar power, wind power and batteries. Where will the world procure most of the renewable energy equipment it seeks? From China. As we know, China is the workshop of the world. Krugman notes that China's manufacturing sector is larger than those of the United States, Japan, Germany and South Korea combined.

While China is strong in many industries, it is utterly dominant in electrotechnology, the cluster of solar panel, wind turbine, battery and electric vehicle industries at the heart of the renewable energy revolution. Krugman cites the Wall Street Journal, which notes that China's green industrial complex reigns supreme. China accounts for more than 80% of global production in all these sectors, with the exception of wind turbines, where China's share is 60%, with Europe retaining a significant role. China uses most of its production within its own economy. It is designed not only for export, but to reduce its dependence on oil and gas.

Krugman notes that under President Joe Biden, the United States took much needed steps to develop their own electrotech sectors, notably batteries and electric vehicles. It sought to accelerate the growth of renewable energy in general. However, the Trump administration has cancelled all of Biden's renewable energy programs and is also actively trying to block private commercial investments in this sector. Is that what needs to happen in Canada? That is my question.

Krugman says that until America frees itself from Trump's obsession with fossil fuels, if it ever does, China's lead in renewable energy production will likely be insurmountable. He concludes that it is nonetheless unfortunate to see the United States self-destruct and yield the most important industry of the future to China. In doing so, the United States is becoming impoverished, falling behind technologically and losing influence in a world rushing toward the energy revolution. In the end, the United States is not simply burning fossil fuels, but also destroying its future.

That seems to be what is being proposed here and it also seems to correspond to the measures the government is taking in the House. When the government says it wants to be an energy superpower, it is talking about oil and gas. It is forging blindly ahead. Oil is a non‑renewable resource, and climate change is real, whether we like it or not.

The takeaway from the current crisis is that we urgently need to reduce our dependence on oil and aim for more stable and more sustainable economic development. Europe is choosing that path. We can do the same. As Krugman pointed out, however, the problem is that China is manufacturing everything at the moment.

However, we could play a role here. Quebec has everything it takes to do so because our strength lies in the new clean economy. We do not have any oil, but we have renewable energy. We have everything it takes to be one of the key links in the new supply chain for states that are working to reduce their dependence on oil and gas. That is where our future lies. We need to support the development of a whole new sector, that of processing the resources that we have already. We need to embrace this shift toward reducing our dependence on oil and gas so that we can compete with China, which already has a huge advantage. However, that is not the choice that Ottawa has made so far. That is not what today's motion is proposing. These are missed opportunities for Quebec.

The current global context is giving us the opportunity to make the most of Quebec's strengths, to reconnect with our true nature and to act as a bridge between North America and Europe. However, neither the official opposition party nor the current government are promoting that approach.

Rail Transportation

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue introduced Bill C-15, the budget bill, which contains measures to help Alto expropriate land from the people of Terrebonne for the high-speed rail line. People might ask what the connection is between the Minister of Finance, a budget bill and expropriations. It is true that there is no connection, except that the Minister of Finance has close ties to Alto's senior management.

Why did he use his budget bill to help Alto, a company he has close ties to, evict the residents of Terrebonne from their homes?