Bill C-31

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

A second 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) providing temporary immediate expensing for eligible manufacturing or processing buildings;
(b) delivering automatic federal benefits for lower-income individuals;
(c) expanding the anti-avoidance rule for direct trust to-trust transfers to include indirect transfers of trust property to other trusts;
(d) limiting the deferral of tax on investment income resulting from the use of tiered corporate structures with mismatched year ends;
(e) clarifying the expenses that qualify as Canadian exploration expenses;
(f) implementing the Crypto-Asset Reporting Framework;
(g) removing bankrupt corporations, trusts and partnerships from the exception to the debt forgiveness rules;
(h) introducing a supplementary rule to strengthen the tax debt anti-avoidance rule;
(i) expanding the clean hydrogen investment tax credit to include hydrogen produced from methane pyrolysis as an eligible production pathway;
(j) enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of information gathering during tax audits;
(k) providing that no Canada Carbon Rebate payments would be made in respect of tax returns, or adjustment requests, filed after October 30, 2026;
(l) simplifying, streamlining and harmonizing the qualified investment rules; and
(m) making a number of technical amendments, including to correct inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
It also amends the Excise Tax Act , in relation to certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act , and the Income Tax Conventions Implementation Act, 1996 , which suspends the operation of the Canada-Russia Income Tax Agreement. Finally, it amends the Air Travellers Security Charge Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and the Select Luxury Items Tax Act in relation to certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act .
Part 2 amends the Global Minimum Tax Act to, among other things, implement the UTPR that subjects the Canadian constituent entities of certain MNE groups to top-up tax in respect of the low-taxed profits of constituent entities of those MNE groups not already subject to an IIR or qualified domestic minimum top-up tax, implement certain aspects of the administrative guidance in respect of the GloBE Model Rules approved by the Inclusive Framework and published by the OECD and implement a number of technical amendments to correct mistakes or inconsistencies and to better align that Act with its intended policy objectives. This Part also makes amendments to the Access to Information Act , the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act and the Tax Court of Canada Act .
Part 3 amends the Excise Tax Act , the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Tax Act and related texts by
(a) clarifying the tax treatment of federally regulated credit unions for Goods and Services Tax/Harmonized Sales Tax (GST/HST) purposes;
(b) extending the application of the special GST/HST rules for certain investment plans to first home savings accounts;
(c) clarifying the application of the imported supply rules to financial institutions in respect of insurance policies or loans relating to persons resident in, or property located in, Canada;
(d) clarifying the GST/HST treatment of certain services supplied by the Canadian Payments Association or any of its members as a consequence of a recent amendment to the Canadian Payments Act ;
(e) ensuring that special GST/HST rules for financial institutions apply correctly to certain small investment plans, master pension entities, insurers that issue only annuities and sureties of performance bonds;
(f) making technical corrections to the input tax credit rules respecting the change in use of property following a sale of a business and to the GST/HST rules for financial institutions relating to mergers of investment plans;
(g) ensuring that the GST/HST applies properly to Lloyd’s Insurance;
(h) clarifying, in respect of financial institutions that do business in an HST province and at least one other province, filing requirements and rules related to the recovery of embedded GST/HST amounts;
(i) providing a six-month period, following the death of an individual who is a GST/HST registrant, during which no return of the individual or their estate is required to be filed;
(j) ensuring that a GST/HST reporting election between a supplier and its agent continues to apply despite the amalgamation, merger or wind-up of either party;
(k) authorizing the Canada Revenue Agency to share information with international tax authorities with which Canada has an information-sharing agreement, in a manner consistent with the Income Tax Act ; and
(l) making a number of technical amendments to correct inconsistencies and to better align the law with its intended policy objectives.
Division 2 of Part 3 implements certain measures in respect of the Excise Act , the Excise Act, 2001 and other related texts by
(a) making technical corrections in respect of the computation of the additional excise duty on cigars and the computation of negative amounts generated by statutory formulas;
(b) clarifying the tax treatment of certain cannabis and vaping products that are unaccounted for or that are taken for use;
(c) implementing a new limit in respect of packaged raw leaf tobacco for importation for personal use and making consequential amendments to ensure the proper enforcement of the new limit;
(d) allowing the Canada Revenue Agency to consider and grant relief to brewers in certain circumstances;
(e) extending the maximum validity period for certain licences from two years to three years; and
(f) authorizing the Canada Revenue Agency to share information with international tax authorities with which Canada has an information-sharing agreement, in a manner consistent with the Income Tax Act .
Part 4 enacts an Act and amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to prohibit financial institutions from issuing documents in bearer form and provide for the replacement of documents that are currently in bearer form.
Division 2 of Part 4 amends the Trust and Loan Companies Act , the Bank Act and the Insurance Companies Act to provide that no action lies against His Majesty in right of Canada and federal government officials for any acts or omissions made in good faith under those Acts.
Division 3 of Part 4 amends the Bank Act to require an institution to offer or sell deposit products in a non-discriminatory manner in certain circumstances.
Division 4 of Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to provide the Governor in Council with authority to make regulations with respect to the conditions under which contracts may be entered into by His Majesty or a Crown corporation. The Division also amends the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act to provide the Governor in Council with authority to make regulations respecting the complaints that may be reviewed by the Procurement Ombudsman and the persons who may file a complaint. The Division also makes a related amendment to the National Capital Act .
Division 5 of Part 4 increases the maximum amounts for accessing the Tax Court of Canada’s informal procedure for appeals under the Income Tax Act and Part IX of the Excise Tax Act .
Division 6 of Part 4 amends Schedule II to the Access to Information Act to prohibit the disclosure of confidential information obtained under the Retail Payment Activities Act or prepared from information obtained under that Act.
Division 7 of Part 4 amends the National Housing Act to increase the total of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation outstanding guarantees that are in force. The Division also amends the Protection of Residential Mortgage or Hypothecary Insurance Act to increase the limit for loans that are insured under that Act.
Division 8 of Part 4 amends the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to provide the Superintendent of Bankruptcy with the power to request various orders from the court if an unlicensed person acts or represents itself as a licensed trustee, and if a person solicits from another person insolvency filings under that Act or makes representations that are false or misleading in a material respect in relation to bankruptcy and insolvency. The Division also increases the maximum fines for certain offences under that Act.
Division 9 of Part 4 amends the Canada Labour Code to, among other things, prohibit non-compete clauses and other employment-related restrictions, except in certain circumstances.
Division 10 of Part 4 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act to eliminate the position of Deputy Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and to provide that the person holding that office is deemed to have been appointed as Chief Commissioner.
Division 11 of Part 4 amends the International Development Research Centre Act to, among other things, reduce the number of members of the Board of Governors of the International Development Research Centre from 14 to 12.
Division 12 of Part 4 amends the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act to provide that a review of the provisions and operation of that Act must be undertaken within five years after the report on the previous review has been tabled in both Houses of Parliament rather than every two years and to specify the period within which the report on the review must be tabled.
Division 13 of Part 4 amends the Pest Control Products Act to replace the mandatory re-evaluation of registered pest control products with a requirement for the Minister of Health to initiate a re-evaluation if, after carrying out an assessment, that Minister has reasonable grounds to believe that the health or environmental risks of a product have increased significantly.
Division 14 of Part 4 amends the Territorial Lands Act to, among other things,
(a) empower the Governor in Council, if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that it is in the national interest, to make orders
(i) to take certain measures with respect to certain lands in Nunavut, including to cancel licences to prospect, the recording of claims or leases of recorded claims or to provide that claims are not to be recorded, that leases of recorded claims are not to be issued or that licences to prospect or leases of recorded claims are not to be renewed, and
(ii) to provide for prohibitions associated with those measures for the persons that are the subject of the orders, including prohibiting the making of an application for a licence to prospect, to record a claim or to lease a recorded claim;
(b) provide that the Minister of Northern Affairs may determine whether compensation is to be paid to certain mineral rights holders that are the subject of the orders referred to in paragraph (a) and, if so, the amount; and
(c) empower the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the implementation of the orders referred to in paragraph (a) and the compensation referred to in paragraph (b).
Division 15 of Part 4 amends the Red Tape Reduction Act to, among other things, ensure that the provisions of the Official Languages Act , or the provisions of an instrument made under that Act, cannot be the subject of an exemption under Part 2 of the Red Tape Reduction Act .
Division 16 of Part 4 contains measures relating to procurement, production and investment in respect of national defence and national security.
Subdivision A of Division 16 enacts the Defence Investment Agency Act . That Act establishes the Defence Investment Agency, whose mandate is to assist the Minister who presides over that Agency in the exercise of the Minister’s powers and performance of the Minister’s duties and functions relating to production, procurement and investment in respect of national defence or national security. That Act also provides for certain other powers, duties and functions of that Minister. Subdivision A also makes related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Subdivision B of Division 16 amends the Defence Production Act to, among other things,
(a) extend the application of that Act to supplies and projects related to national security and to services related to national defence and national security;
(b) provide that the Minister who presides over the Defence Investment Agency has exclusive authority to acquire supplies and services related to national defence and national security that are required for the purposes of a department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, subject to certain exceptions;
(c) extend the purposes for which that Minister may engage in stockpiling to include national defence and national security, including economic security, and the defence and security of an associated government or other state;
(d) provide that Minister with new financial authorities, including the authority to enter into financial transactions for the purpose of investment in national defence and national security sectors; and
(e) establish procurement rules in relation to national defence and national security.
Subdivision B also makes consequential amendments and terminology changes to certain legislative texts.
Division 17 of Part 4 amends the Canada Transportation Act to, among other things,
(a) authorize the Governor in Council to choose to have the backlog of air travel complaints resolved by third parties engaged by the Minister of Transport or the Canadian Transportation Agency;
(b) transfer responsibility for the resolution of air travel complaints from the Canadian Transportation Agency to the Minister of Transport;
(c) authorize the Governor in Council to choose to have future air travel complaints resolved by third parties approved by the Minister of Transport;
(d) transfer authority to make regulations respecting air passenger rights from the Canadian Transportation Agency to the Minister of Transport;
(e) remove mandatory confidentiality requirements regarding air travel complaints; and
(f) increase the maximum administrative penalty payable by corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations.

An Act to Authorize Certain Payments to be Made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time today with the member for Flamborough—Glanbrook—Brant North.

Before I turn to the business at hand, I would like to share that I was in Hamilton this morning for the change of command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I have had the honour of serving and sailing with both naval officers, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee and Vice-Admiral Dan Charlebois. After four years of distinguished service and amazing leadership, Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee has turned over command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I think of all the amazing things he did, and he should be acknowledged for his care of those sailors and the others who worked for him. As well, I want to send my congratulations to recently promoted Vice-Admiral Dan Charlebois, who will be taking over command of the Royal Canadian Navy. I have no doubt that he will lead with distinction.

Today, I rise to oppose Bill C-26, an act to authorize certain payments to be made out of the consolidated revenue fund for the purpose of improving housing supply. As always, I rise on behalf of the great people of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on beautiful Vancouver Island, the seniors, the young families, the trades workers, the veterans, and the men and women who get up before dawn, work hard, play by the rules, yet watch the dream of owning a home drift a little further out of reach every year that passes.

In the Cowichan Valley today, the benchmark price of a single-family home sits above $780,000. Across Vancouver Island, it is close to $800,000, and in greater Victoria, including Langford, the average sale price is now nearing $1 million. However, there are people behind those numbers, and I know many of them by name. I know veterans, men and women who once wore this country's uniform, who are now living out of their trucks. I know forestry and mill workers who have been knocked down by mill curtailments and closures and are now living in campers. I know people who have been taxed out of the very homes they worked their whole lives for, who are now living in trailers and tents. I know young couples who have all but given up on the idea that they will ever stop renting.

When I speak about housing in this chamber, I am not speaking simply about a line in a budget. I am speaking about the greatest single worry in people's lives right now. This bill is such a disappointment to me because the people I represent do not need another illusion. They need a home.

The government has a real gift for illusion. Bill C-26 is dressed up as Emerald City on the Hill, with $1.7 billion announced with a great deal of fanfare, and all of it said to be for housing. What I would ask of every member of Parliament is that they pull back the curtain and reveal what the illusion is. When they do, they will find that the whole substance of this bill is in a single small section that says, “The Minister of Finance may make payments to the provinces and territories, the total of which is equal to $1.‍713 billion”. It also says, “The amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister of Finance.” Those payments may be made “at the times and in the manner that the Minister of Finance considers appropriate.”

That is the entire bill. There are no conditions attached to it. There is no requirement to come back and report to Parliament, no definition of what “improving housing supply” is even meant to mean, and nowhere does the government commit to building so much as a single home. The government claims there will be 11,000 for the $13 billion it is spending. What we are being asked to approve is not a housing plan at all, but a blank cheque, and we are being asked to trust the one man who gets to fill in that amount.

We have seen this before, and not long ago. Buried inside division 16 of the last budget bill, Bill C-31, was the Defence Investment Agency act. I studied it closely as a member of Standing Committee on National Defence, and tucked away in it was a remarkable power: the authority for a single minister to draw up to $1 billion at a time out of the very same consolidated revenue fund. It is the same fund, the same kind of open-ended discretion, and it is once again being slipped quietly into a budget where most Canadians would never think to look. I spent a better part of three decades in uniform, and I can plainly tell members of Parliament that we do not rebuild a military or a country on a blank cheque, a fancy press release and announcement.

Now, here we are again with Bill C-26. It is a different minister and a different file, but the very same approach. The Minister of National Defence was reaching into that fund $1 billion at a time, and now the Minister of Finance is reaching into that fund for $1.7 billion more. The illusions have many names, and it is my job to pull back that curtain and expose the reality.

This is not a coincidence. It is becoming a habit of the government to gather the money and the decisions into as few hands as possible, strip away the accountability that ought to come with them and trust that the fancy announcement of the day will carry the day. I would gently remind the House where that kind of governing tends to lead. When enormous public resources can be moved around by a handful of powerful people with little real scrutiny, we are no longer describing a healthy democracy. We are describing something closer to an oligarchy.

An oligarchy is never built one dramatic stroke at a time. Rather, it is built quietly, one billion unaccountable dollars at a time. When money on that scale can move on the say-so of one minister with no criteria and no audit, I think we all know who tends to benefit in the end, and it is rarely the young family in Langford or the senior in Duncan. Instead, it is the well connected and the well placed.

This brings me to the real question at the heart of this bill. It does not ask us to trust an institution with all of its checks and balances and safeguards. It asks us to trust one man: the Minister of Finance. I think it is fair to ask whether that trust has been earned.

Let us consider the record. The minister told Canadians he had recused himself from the Alto high-speed rail file, one of the most expensive projects in our country's history, because his own wife serves as vice-president at the very corporation building it. He wrote a letter, he announced a screen, and he assured us he had stepped aside. However, when a motion came before Parliament that would have stripped the high-speed rail provisions out of the government's budget bill, the minister did not step aside at all. He stayed and voted to protect the project.

Both of these things cannot be true at the same time. Either he genuinely recused himself or he voted on a matter that reached his own wife's employer. Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been spent and poured into that project, and the track has yet to be laid.

I do not raise this to make anything personal. I raise it because accountability is the whole purpose of Parliament, and this is the same minister who is asking for the same trust on the same terms, only now the figure is $1.7 billion higher. I have not risen here only to criticize and to show the illusion. The people of Vancouver Island deserve better than what this bill offers, and there is a better way forward, so let me set it out.

First, we could tie the money to results rather than to announcements. The funds should flow against real, measurable increases in housing starts and completions that are verified and made public. Second, we would put the conditions in the legislation itself, not in one minister's head. We need clear criteria, clear timelines and clear reporting back to Parliament. Third, we would bring in the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the Auditor General to follow this money, from the first dollar to the last nail, and tell Canadians honestly whether it worked. Finally, we could direct the funding to the communities that are actually developing, improving and building homes, be it on Vancouver Island or across the country, rather than rewarding the ones that stall. That is how a government could actually improve the housing of Canada.

The people of Vancouver Island are not easily fooled. They have been shown the Emerald City before. What they are asking for this time is a home they can afford in a community they love and a government they can actually trust with every dollar it spends. They are watching this debate right now, and they are waiting.

Let me be clear: I cannot support Bill C-26 as it is written. If it does proceed to committee, it must not pass unchanged. It must be fixed. It must be amended to carry the safeguards I have set out today. We need real conditions, real reporting and real oversight so that every dollar is tied to a home built and not one more announcement.

The people of Vancouver Island deserve nothing less. The people of Canada deserve nothing less. They deserve a government they can trust and a Parliament with the courage to hold $1.7 billion of taxpayers' money to account. I urge every member of Parliament on all sides to summon that courage.

Government Business No. 11—Proceedings on Bill C‑26

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge all the brave men and women who are here tonight and who will be staying up late. I was joking around earlier with my colleague and neighbour, the member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. All kidding aside, I think that she knows that I really like her. I mentioned behavioural issues because she was talking really loudly. However, we really like hearing her voice. That said, she still plans to support a closure motion. She is still going to vote in favour of it.

This is not the first closure motion that we have debated. As Parliament winds down for the summer, ever since the government managed to scrape together a majority by poaching members from the Conservatives and the NDP, it has imposed closure on not one, two, three, four or five bills, but nine. The government is likely going to keep Parliament in session until very late this Friday. That is okay because it is our job to be here. However, this is happening because the government is not communicating with the opposition parties properly. It is not managing its work in the House properly, and it is having a hard time setting its priorities.

The government has even introduced closure on Bill C-22. This is a bill that could be highly detrimental to Canadians' privacy and that will, in a sense, give the police access to our phones and our private data. Everyone understands that the legal framework needs to evolve, but imposing closure on this today is not something we were expecting. This is preventing serious parliamentary work from being carried out, yet I do not believe there was any real urgency. This is not the economic update. This is not tax legislation.

The same thing happened with Bill C-30. The government turned up in committee. I agree that not all the proposed amendments were sound. However, when the first Conservative amendment was moved, after barely two minutes of debate, the government made its position very clear. Through the member for Whitby, it made it known that no amendments would be tolerated, that the government now had a majority and that, ultimately, committee time serves only a superficial purpose.

The government is muzzling debate on important issues. One example is Bill C‑30. Right now, the government is telling us that it was elected, that it has a job to do, that it has an agenda. The new government, which is now almost 11 years old, says it was elected with a job to do.

Now, the government is changing the law on pesticides to allow cabinet to make decisions that go against the science on pesticides. I am sure that there are plenty of great people in cabinet. However, there are no pesticide specialists or scientists who have conducted studies on the subject. The Green Party member came to talk to us about this in committee. She clearly explained that, when it comes to pesticides and the environment, this bill is the most regressive and the most damaging to human health and safety since possibly the 1970s. That was not in the Liberals' election platform.

Privatizing airports to funnel money into their so-called sovereign wealth fund, which does not have a single penny in it, was not part of their campaign platform. Allowing air passenger complaints to be outsourced to private sector companies chosen by the Minister of Transportation, who is himself buddies with the airlines, which may even choose the companies that will handle complaints about them, was not part of the Liberals' platform.

Even though filibusters may sometimes be necessary in cases of parliamentary deadlock, members of Parliament must still be allowed to do their jobs. They must be given the chance to do their jobs. Closure is a measure of last resort that is imposed when there is a genuine deadlock. After all, there is a reason why it exists in the rules. However, it is not meant to be imposed eight, nine, 10, or 11 times in two or three days simply because the government has not done its job properly.

I said it was not doing its job properly, so I will give some examples. Bill C-26 is one such example. Then there is Bill C-31. People need to understand that when a bill is introduced, opposition members must study it. To study it, they must be able to ask public servants very technical questions to have the bill's clauses explained to them. This is called a technical briefing. These briefings are generally provided shortly after we receive the bill, so that we can do our jobs.

When the Liberals imposed closure on Bill C-31, we had been asking the Department of Finance for a briefing for three weeks. We had not received a reply. Eventually, we were given a briefing on a Thursday, I believe, while everyone was attending committee meetings and almost none of the critics were able to attend. The following Monday, the Liberals introduced a closure motion. They claim that there is filibustering happening and that closure motions are necessary, but that is simply not the case. Now, we are in the same position with Bill C-26. We agree that Bill C-26 provides for unconditional payments to Quebec. This is rare; we welcome it and believe it is a sound approach. However, we have been asking for a technical briefing on Bill C-26 for about two months now. For two months, we have wanted to study and understand it, and now we are being hit with time allocation.

We finally came to understand it during consideration of the estimates. I was there for consideration of the estimates, and so was the Minister of Finance. There were many questions about this. At this point, we are taking the minister's word for it that he has reached an agreement with Quebec and that, based on this agreement, Quebec will receive its share of the funds, no strings attached. However, we had no way of knowing this from reading the bill. I had to stand up in committee of the whole to ask the Minister of Finance whether he intended to transfer the funds to Quebec with no strings attached. Only once we got answers in committee of the whole were we able to continue our own consideration of the bill. The bill states that the “amount of each payment is to be determined by the Minister”.

This means that, once Bill C‑26 is passed, the Minister of Finance can get up tomorrow morning and decide how much to pay each government. He has the right to do whatever he wants with this money; it is at his discretion. The bill also states that amounts are to be paid out “at the times and in the manner that the Minister...considers appropriate.”

Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have a vague bill, and we are realizing, after months, that the intent is there, that negotiations are happening, but also that our questions were legitimate. What is more, the explanations we got so we could understand this bill came from a press release. We had to pore over the press release to try to understand the government's intentions. It was almost like analyzing a religious text. Despite all that, we are in favour of Bill C‑26. However, the government is telling us that there is interference, that there is work to be done, that they need to move quickly, that this is very important and that the opposition is blocking the process. That is not what is happening in this case. What we have here is a case of poor management of House of Commons time and poor management of committees by the office of the government House leader.

I should point out that Quebec is the only province with permanent social and community housing construction programs. In Quebec, the definition of “social and community housing” differs from the definition of “affordable housing” used by programs in the rest of Canada. When it came to programs managed by CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with the possible exception of the rapid housing initiative, Quebec rarely received its share because these programs focused on high-rise apartment buildings in cities in the rest of Canada.

During the minute of time that I have left, I wish to say that under the current circumstances, with the construction and community ecosystems that are familiar with Quebec's programs, what is being done here today is important. It is important to recognize that the most effective approach for these programs is to take 20% or 22% of the amount and pay it directly to Quebec. I will end by saying that this would prevent the Liberals from doing what they did with Canada's national housing strategy, in other words, setting tons of conditions like the Trudeau government did and ending up in negotiations for three or four years, while we miss out on tens of thousands of completed housing units.

We are pleased that the minister has agreed to pay Quebec its share. We are convinced that it will lead to housing starts on the ground and benefit Quebeckers.

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

[Marilyn Gladu, Liberal, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and to speak to Bill C‑30 and the programming motion about how the government is going to pass it. Bill C‑30 is a continuation of the good news we heard in the spring economic update, Bill C‑31. We know there were positive economic signs. The deficit was $11 billion less than expected, which is good, and there is a plan to balance the operating budget in just a few years, which is a good sign. We have the highest growth in the G7, three times the rate of Italy and twice the rate of Germany and Japan, which is also good news.

All these things are indicators that the economy is starting to click. There has definitely been a pause, but we are getting back to a good place. The investment per capita is also the highest in the G7. This is really good news, because for a while, foreign investment was fleeing the country, so to have it returning, as well as to have the highest investment per capita, is another positive indicator.

I am personally quite proud of the Prime Minister's efforts to diversify our trade. In just one year, there have been 21 agreements made, and project announcements are coming forward, such as the Bombardier $15‑billion plane announcement and a number of the projects that are starting to roll. These are all signs that our diversification of trade away from the U.S., so we are not so dependent on it, is working. There was a lovely graph in the spring economic update. If people have not seen it, they should look. It showed the progress we are making. These are all signs that we are going in the direction of good.

People are still suffering under the affordability crisis, for sure, but wages are increasing at a greater rate than inflation. It is the first time that has happened in quite a while, which is also a very good sign. In addition to that, the government's plan is working in terms of creating jobs. The jobs numbers are starting to come up. I heard the Minister of Industry announce the other day that 88,000 jobs were created in the last month.

We know that the jobs are going to come with the major projects we are building, the 14 major projects in that category, and there are all kinds of other ones as well. I was really interested to hear of a particular one. I have been talking for a long time about aluminum and the unjustified tariffs with the U.S. We should not be shipping our aluminum to the U.S., having it turned into beer cans and pop cans and bringing them back to Canada at a higher cost. We should be making those things here. I have just heard that there are three plants that are going to be making those cans here in Canada, creating jobs for Canadians and reducing the damage we are suffering from the unjustified tariff war. I think that is a very good thing as well.

In terms of some of the programs that are coming, build Canada strong is something everybody can get behind. We all want the country to flourish. There is a combination of things that are needed in order to make that happen. I spoke a bit about the major projects, which is a key thing, but we also know that we need to build affordable housing. In my riding of Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, this is the number one priority. We have a gap of about 1,800 affordable spaces that are needed, and that is in just one riding. Think about that added up all over the country. The need is great.

Our new government has done great on focusing plans and putting incentives in place that will not just build homes but also make those homes more affordable. The initiative to work with, for example, the province of Ontario to get rid of permitting fees will take about $200,000 off the price of a house. That is really substantial, especially for first-time homebuyers who are trying to get into the market. Taking the GST off homes up to a value of $1 million is also tangible evidence that we are getting the price of houses down. Across the nation, the price of houses is down 20%, and rents are down 9%, other encouraging signs. I feel a little like the Minister of Finance, saying, “more good news”, because there is a lot of good news to be shared with the House.

The other thing I really like is building team Canada, right from starting off with something that is near and dear to my heart and my riding: $6 billion announced for apprenticeships to get Red Seal certification. We have about 6,000 trades and, I would say, one of the world‑class quality, safety and productivity trades in Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong. I was really pleased to have the Secretary of State for Labour come meet with LiUNA and St. Clair Mechanical, the shops that do the training of these apprentices. As members may know, one of the apprentices we met actually won a gold medal in Ontario for the welding competition and is on his way to nationals, so I send a shout‑out to Ryan Beattie for that.

Making sure that our young people have well‑paying jobs is just one of the things we need to do. There are measures as well that will give them some relief on their student debt, and there are incentives in this budget that are going to open doors. I love the playground to podium initiative, because we all need to get interested in sports. In my long life so far, I have been involved in many areas of sport. I received my black belt in tae kwon do, was a triathlete and did long‑distance running. I was also a spin cycling instructor.

We know that for people who get involved in sport, it is not just about being healthy. It also teaches us a lot about leadership, teamwork and other things we need. We are so proud, and it really unites the country, when we see Canada on the podium winning gold. It does not matter what the sport is. Everybody has their favourite. I am sure there are people out there right now who just cannot wait for the FIFA games to begin. I am married to a hockey player, a guy who loves hockey, so hockey is a 24‑7 passion in our house. Whatever the sport is, we need to invest in making sure Canada is represented and can be proud on the world stage. That is another very good thing.

We live in a very volatile world, one that is increasingly dangerous, and it is really nice that we are starting to recognize we need to reinvest in our defence, reinvest in our military. I was disheartened to find out, as one of the military members told me, that we have only about 12 hours' worth of ammunition. If we ever get into a conflict, that is it, and we do not have any domestic production. However, there is more good news: A munitions plant is going to be built in Ingersoll. There is more to come on all this.

These are great things, and this is a way as well that we can protect ourselves from the unjustified tariffs from the U.S. A lot of the manufacturers and tool and die folks, especially in southwestern Ontario, have been hugely impacted by the section 232 tariffs. Not only has our government provided relief to get them through, such as $1 billion from the BDC and another $500 million in tariff relief funds, which were responsibly brought to the table when these tariffs arrived, but we are also seeing that people can pivot into the defence industry.

With our having rolled out the buy Canadian procurement, everyone who has a business can sign up and get their number registered so they can see what government contracts are being let that they would be qualified to provide a service for. This will get more people to work and will, again, drive the economy. There is a lot of upside to that.

I am very proud that we are increasing wages for the members who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. These are men and women who sacrifice. They sacrifice with their families. They sacrifice with their bodies. They sacrifice a lot to be in these situations, so they deserve to be well rewarded.

I would be remiss if I did not talk a bit about the measures to address affordability, because people are struggling. I hear about it in my riding, especially from single seniors. The ones on a fixed income are probably some of the poorest in our country, and it is a shame because many of them built the country, and they deserve to live with dignity. There are many measures the government has brought, such as the grocery benefit, which is $1,900 for a family of four and $800 for an individual, and the tax cut for 22 million people.

There are the various programs for addressing the school food program. I do not know if members saw the announcement from the Prime Minister yesterday about food security and a huge investment of $3 billion to try to make sure that we can get food prices down and that we can produce more of our food supply domestically and become less dependent on others in the world.

All of these are extremely good measures. This is the good news that we heard in the spring economic update, and it is just continuing on in Bill C‑30.

One of the ideas in the bill is to modify the labour mobility deduction for eligible tradespeople. I know our new government has leveraged a lot of ideas from the members opposite, and I remember that one coming forward. It would also be making permanent the capital gains exemption for the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust or a worker co‑operative. This would be critical because a lot of people who own small businesses are getting long in the tooth and they are looking for a succession plan. In order to facilitate that succession plan, they need to have this kind of relief.

There are many other things in Bill C‑30. Some are in regard to taxation measures and excise tax. I like the reduction of the amount people have to pay in to get CPP. I think it has been increased a number of times over the last decade, and it is nice to see some relief coming there for employers and for individuals.

I want to provide some clarification on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. I have a lot of farmers in my riding, a lot of very innovative farmers who are into organic farming and some of the new things that are coming on. The CFIA needs this modernization activity that the government is focusing on. I think that is a very good thing.

If we look at our core mission of building the infrastructure, empowering Canadians by lowering costs and protecting our communities, all of these things are intertwined. I can put an example out there of what the build Canada fund is going to provide. In my riding, I need seven stormwater and waste water upgrades in order to facilitate affordable house building. This is the kind of funding that is needed by the municipalities. I am sure I will not get all seven, but I will keep pestering until I get as many as I can. That is what we need. It is fundamental.

As for the the building communities fund, Sarnia is the only city that does not have a rec centre of size. This building Canadian communities fund is a good fund to support things like that. We have been awarded the international plowing match in 2027. For those who have not seen an international plowing match, it is something to be seen. It attracts visitors from all over. There is huge economic development and huge economic activity, and some infrastructure is needed to prepare the grounds that the event will take place on. Again, the build Canada communities fund would be very useful for that.

All in all, I would say our new government is on the right track. We are going to build Canada strong. We are already seeing the signs that things are going in the direction of good. We just need to keep on, we need to diversify away from the U.S., and we need to address CUSMA. All of these things are things the government is seized with, and we will continue to work for the good of all Canadians.

Concurrence in Vote 5—Department of National Defence

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean. I am sure he will make very good use of that time.

Since we are talking about the estimates today, we can address any aspect of the use of public funds. I want to briefly revisit our disappointment regarding the implementation of the budget, Bill C-31, among others, and the lack of response to one of our main concerns.

There is something I do not understand. We keep saying that our SMEs need help. We also keep trying to explain to people in other Canadian provinces, in English-speaking Canada, that Quebec's economic fabric is unique because of its SMEs, which need support. We believe that the wage subsidy would be helpful in the current climate, given the new tariffs. However, we have not received a response. It is radio silence. There were no consultations before the budget measures were introduced.

The government continues to subsidize the oil industry at every opportunity. Once again, these bills give the government even more power, including discretionary powers, which, to be perfectly honest, are frightening.

Anyone who looked at the media this morning saw the news about crop protection products, herbicides and pesticides. I know what I am talking about, since I was the agriculture and agri-food critic for a long time. We studied these issues extensively at committee.

What we were seeing, particularly with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, or CFIA, and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency, or PMRA, which is now called the Pesticides Regulatory Directorate, or PRD, was a lack of efficiency. Whenever there was an emergency on a farm and an emergency registration was requested, it got delayed. It can take years, because the staff are in no rush, because there are not enough resources, or for any number of reasons.

For three or four years, we had been studying the possibility of allowing drones to be used to spray pesticides, even though these same pesticides are already approved to be sprayed by plane. Planes spray pesticides at higher altitudes, over larger areas and using larger quantities. Logically, drone spraying will require a smaller quantity of pesticides and be able to focus on specific parts of the field. That is exactly what we want. It takes three or four years to approve that. We are scratching our heads and wondering why.

That is what we were calling out. What is the government doing now to address the problem? It is saying that when the PRD rejects a product, cabinet can decide to authorize it for economic reasons. This is a very slippery slope, one that is reminiscent of what we have seen in previous bills. In just about every bill we vote on, the government gives its ministers the power to override other laws.

This is extremely concerning. I do not believe that allowing cabinet to decide to authorize banned products will increase public confidence. We already use several products that are banned in Europe. What we need are resources and efficiency at the PRD and the CFIA. We must not give elected officials, who are not scientists, the power to authorize the use of toxic products.

Let us be honest: These products are used to kill pests or eliminate diseases. That is what they do. The people who apply these products are our farmers, the people who feed us. When products are banned, it is often not only because of their effects on the soil, but also because of the risks they pose to the people applying them.

What they are saying is, too bad, saving the crop is more important. I do not feel that we are reacting strongly enough to this change. I believe there is a major problem with undemocratic governance right now. The Liberal government continually grants itself the power to override the application of laws.

Things are not moving quickly enough in Canada. We are not efficient enough. It is not that complicated. The government is going to run this country like a business. If a law slows things down, then the government will get rid of it. That is what it is doing with the Alto high‑speed rail project.

If members watched the press scrums today, then they saw my leader's response. We have no choice but to oppose this project because it is being handled all wrong and because the government is infringing on the rights of our constituents. As the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I cannot sit idly by while my constituents are treated like second‑class citizens because the government wants to run a train through their land and it wants the project to be completed quickly without any delays. The government is going to take away these citizens' right to speak to an independent hearing officer and their right to object to the price offered for the land.

What is more, the government knows that the railway may have to cross sensitive areas, such as the Lanoraie peat bog. It figured that with the high-speed rail project, it is easy. It just needed to add a line to the bill stating that an environmental assessment is not required. That is how Canada is being run right now. I think the public will eventually realize this, as this bad habit of granting absolute powers continues to repeat itself. We are drifting away from democracy. That is what I think.

Parliaments have passed laws over the years. I am not saying we should not adapt our laws. I am not saying we should not review and assess them regularly. If 28 regulations have been added and none have ever been removed, perhaps one or two could make way for the new ones that address the same issue. That is possible. However, we need to be smart about this. We need to take our time. The opposition parties need to be consulted. We need to have healthy, thorough debates. That is not what is happening right now.

Instead, time allocation is imposed, so we do not have enough time. It is being rushed through. They want to go on vacation. It is summer, and it is almost time to wrap up our work, but the government still wants to get its seven, eight, 10 or 12 bills passed. That means we have to stay until midnight and get it done. That is the situation we find ourselves in.

I dream of a world where election campaigns last a month and a half, like they are supposed to, and where, in between elections, elected officials work together for the common good. In that world, the party in power would not be able to negotiate with members to secure a majority and then do whatever it wants without consulting anyone else. That is what we are currently experiencing. That is what I am experiencing, and it is dangerous.

I have said it before, but I will say it again and again, because it seems that some members on the other side of the House are not listening. The Bloc Québécois is a constructive opposition. We do not just sit around whining. We have come up with proposals. One good idea would be to eliminate the oil subsidies. The Liberals are listening to us so much that they are increasing that funding.

There are wage subsidies, as I mentioned earlier. There is EI reform. When people lose their jobs, 40% of them are ineligible for benefits. That is outright theft because they have paid into the system. They are required to do so, but they do not qualify. It would be like me charging people for home insurance while telling them I will never pay out. I am not sure they would keep paying me for long, unless they did not check their bills. We do check them. There are the cheques that were sent out during the election campaign, for which we have requested reimbursement. There is the influx of refugees we took in.

I am going to talk about agriculture again, because I miss it a little. I saw the UPA people today at their press conference opposing high‑speed rail. They have a point. Research centres have been closed. The government should be investing in research and innovation, not making cuts. At a time when cabinet is being given the power to approve whatever crop protection products it wants, the agencies responsible for regulating and approving them are facing cuts. What should be happening is the opposite. Personally, I dream of a government that makes agriculture a priority. The fact that less than 1% of the budget goes to agriculture in a country like Canada is shameful. It should be at least 2%. Agriculture is the foundation for everything. Defence is about to get 5%.

Do members know how cities were captured in the Middle Ages? They were not attacked; they were encircled, and the besieging army simply waited until all the food inside was gone. That is the way a territory is weakened. It may have the best army in the world, but if it does not have the means to feed it, if it does not have free-flowing international trade and is not self-sufficient when it comes to food, it will have a big problem.

We need to make wise choices and, for goodness' sake, stop this shift toward authoritarianism.

Premature Disclosure of a Bill and its Elements to a Third Party—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on May 25, 2026, by the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères regarding the alleged premature disclosure of C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.

In raising his question of privilege, the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères asserted that information about Bill C-31 had been disclosed to Air Canada before the bill was introduced in the House. He argued that the series of events starting with Air Canada's announcement of a new arbitration mechanism, followed by the government's economic statement and then the introduction of the bill, indicated that a third party had gained preferential access to information that enabled it to anticipate and implement a mechanism aligned with legislative intentions that had yet to be shared with parliamentarians. In the member's view, these events could not be a coincidence and constituted a breach of the privileges of the House and its members.

In response, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said that members' privileges were not breached in any way. He explained that the government can consult stakeholders and the public as part of the policy development process before a bill is finalized. In addition, he said, the announcements by Air Canada and the government were made before the period during which the contents of a bill must remain confidential, namely the period between the time a bill is placed on notice and its introduction.

In this instance, the announcements were made well before this time period. The parliamentary secretary also pointed out that on May 4, the government had tabled a notice of ways and means motion that included all the measures that were later contained in Bill C-31, consistent with the principle that the House have first access to legislative measures. He concluded that the practices and precedents of the House had been respected.

The Chair would like to begin by reiterating the importance of the convention that the House must be the first to know the details of new legislative measures. Under this convention, it is prohibited to make the contents of a bill public from the time it is added to the Notice Paper until its introduction in the House, with an exception provided for cases where the full text of a bill is included in a ways and means motion. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons did not deny that the government may have consulted with industry stakeholders.

These consultations are routine and are not in themselves a matter of privilege. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states the following in section 3.14: “the right to be the first to know the contents of a bill must coexist with the need of the government and members to hold consultations with the public and stakeholders on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation and prior to announcing the intention to introduce a bill on a specific issue.”

Indeed, Speakers of the House have often remarked that the House has to accommodate the government's need to conduct in-depth consultations with the public and affected groups before introducing legislation.

In light of the submissions heard, the Chair concludes that the House's right to be the first informed of legislative measures was not infringed by the government's consultations. Likewise, there is no basis for the Chair to hold that the government knowingly shared specific details of Bill C‑31 with Air Canada before the bill was brought to the House.

The Chair therefore cannot conclude that members were impeded in carrying out their parliamentary functions or that a contempt was committed. Consequently, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege.

I thank all members for their attention.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2—Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on May 25, 2026, by the member for Mirabel concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.

In the member's view, part 4, division 17 of the bill should be the subject of a separate vote at second reading and be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities for study, as it lacks a sufficiently close connection to the rest of the bill and could stand as a distinct legislative proposal. In support of this position, the member argued that these provisions, which introduce amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, relate primarily to the handling of air travel complaints and were not announced in the budget. Citing my predecessor's ruling of January 30, 2024, the member maintained that the inclusion of measures in a budget implementation bill does not automatically constitute a sufficient and common theme and that Standing Order 69.1 exists to protect members' right to vote separately on distinct legislative matters.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons also intervened on the matter, contending that provisions contained in part 4, division 17, were in fact announced in the 2025 budget, even if the connection was not immediately obvious, and that the provisions should therefore be voted on together with the rest of the bill. Citing a ruling delivered by Speaker Regan on November 6, 2018, the parliamentary secretary argued that broad and sometimes vague policy commitments in a budget document may become detailed and lengthy legislative proposals. He referred to two passages in the 2025 budget document in support of his position: first, to references concerning proposed investments in airports and ports; and second, to a proposed review of administrative monetary penalties and fines, including related to passenger rights. Additionally, the parliamentary secretary noted that Standing Order 69.1 does not apply to dividing bills for referral to committee.

Standing Order 69.1(1) gives the Speaker the authority to divide, for voting purposes, the questions at second and third reading of a government bill if that bill touches on more than one act and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions. There is, however, an exception for budget implementation acts. Standing Order 69.1(2) reads as follows:

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

Therefore, the Chair must first determine whether these measures were announced in the November 2025 budget presentation or in the documents tabled with it. If they were not, the exception in Standing Order 69.1(2) does not apply, and the Chair may then consider whether the question should be divided for voting purposes. In this case, the Chair is satisfied that Bill C‑31 has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget.

The Chair has reviewed the passages in the 2025 budget document brought to the House's attention by the parliamentary secretary. Page 100 of the 2025 budget indicates the government's plan to stimulate investment in airports and ports. While investment in airports may well have some effect on air travel complaints, the Chair is of the view that an air travel complaints regime, as proposed in part 4, division 17, is a new matter unrelated to this section of the budget document.

Page 218 of the document describes administrative monetary penalties and fines for violations of certain legislation or regulations and mentions air passenger rights as one such example. In effect, part 4, division 17, of Bill C-31, in clauses 351 to 353, amends sections of the Canada Transportation Act that appear under the heading “administrative monetary penalties”. The Chair agrees with the parliamentary secretary that there is, to this extent, a connection between the budget document and some clauses in this division of the bill.

The Chair has two reservations about considering this a sufficient connection, however. First, the policy announcement on page 218 of the budget document concerns the review of fines and penalties, the result of which is to be announced in budget 2026. Second, and more significant, in the Chair's view, part 4, division 17, is broader in substance, introducing new mechanisms for the management of air travel complaints and changes to the related regulatory regime not substantially related to the contents of the budget document. Moreover, as the parliamentary secretary noted, these more detailed proposals were subsequently announced in the 2026 spring economic update.

As my predecessor observed in a ruling on January 30, 2024, at pages 20323 and 20324 of the Debates, the budget presentation and economic statements are related but distinct concepts. The exception in Standard Order 69.1(2) is limited to budget implementation bills where the provisions were announced in the budget presentation and related documents. The exception, therefore, does not apply to measures newly announced in an economic statement.

Accordingly, the absence of these measures from the budget presentation or its related documents allows the Chair to now consider whether the question can be divided for the purpose of voting. In analyzing the relevant parts of the bill, the Chair finds that the provisions of Bill C‑31 amending the Canada Transportation Act do indeed constitute a distinct legislative proposal. However, while the Standing Orders authorize the Chair to divide the question for voting purposes, they do not authorize the Chair to refer different parts of the bill to different standing committees, as the member for Mirabel requested.

Consequently, as a reasoned amendment has been moved, three votes will be held at second reading for Bill C-31. The first will deal with the reasoned amendment. If it is negatived, a second vote will deal with part 4, division 17 or clauses 339 to 364, and a third vote will deal with all remaining provisions of the bill. The adopted measures will be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance unless the House orders otherwise.

I thank all members for their attention.

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, I understand that members want to debate the content of Bill C‑31, but I want to remind everyone that we are in fact debating a time allocation motion on this bill and the decision to allocate a specific amount of time for debate on it.

I have a question for the minister. Why did we have to spend more than three weeks asking officials from the Department of Finance for a technical briefing on a 300-page bill of which certain divisions, like division 17 on air passengers, have nothing to do with budgetary policy? Can the minister please explain why, for three weeks, we were unable to ask officials questions in order to do our parliamentary homework? There was radio silence.

The minister's response was essentially that we should just read the bill ourselves, since we are a bunch of lazy bums. That level of arrogance is typical of this government.

Personally, I am acting in good faith. I do read the budget document. We spend a ton of time on it. It is highly technical and legislative. We did receive a briefing from officials, but we only received it a few hours before the government imposed time allocation.

I am therefore asking the minister whether he considers it acceptable that it took three weeks before we received a response to our request for a briefing and that his government imposed time allocation right after that.

I am also asking him whether, for future bills, he thinks it would be appropriate to provide the opposition with a timely response so that it can perform its work constructively and properly debate all the legislative issues involved in bills.

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

Madam Speaker, I have to say I am quite disappointed that here we are again with the Liberals' shutting down parliamentary debate on such an important bill. Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2, is a giant omnibus bill, over 330 pages long, with some proposed major changes to the way government operates.

Under division 16 in the budget implementation act is the new defence investment agency act, and that act would open up a door of potential abuse and unethical behaviour by the government. In the section that actually talks about having competition, the Liberals list over 20 different different exemptions from competition, and it would make the minister responsible for the Defence Investment Agency immune from any criticism and give them a get-out-of-jail-free card for why any particular project or competitor is disqualified from that competition.

We have this motion, instead of proper debate in the House right now that would allow Parliament to actually explore all the problems within division 16 of the budget implementation act, and instead of actually talking about how defence procurement could be used and abused by the government in power. Why not have the debate? Why do the Liberals always resort to shutting down parliamentary processes, in the name of cover-ups and Liberal largesse?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture and Minister responsible for Official Languages]

moved:

That, in relation to Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the bill; and That, 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders on the day allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this order, and, in turn, every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

Bill C-31—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Minister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to second reading stage of Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Business of the House

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very surprising to hear that the Conservative Party still uses Justin Trudeau as its only plan to try to get into the hearts of Canadians. Unfortunately, in April 2025, Canadians elected a new government to do the business of the people of Canada.

On that note, I want to take the opportunity to wish my friend and colleague the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie a great time as he takes the next step in his life. I thank him for the amazing work he has done for this country on environment and climate change. I also thank him for his contribution to this caucus and to this Parliament as a minister, as a member of Parliament and as a great friend and colleague to all of us.

This evening we will have debate in committee of the whole on the main estimates for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Tomorrow and Monday, we will continue second reading debate on Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.

I also wish to inform the House that Tuesday will be an allotted day. Finally, on Wednesday and Thursday, we will move on to the third reading report stage of Bill C-16, the protecting victims act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No.2

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

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

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

Standing Order 69.1(1) states:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Department of Finance—Main Estimates, 2026-27

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

Madam Chair, the Minister of Finance is well aware that his Prime Minister bent the knee to Trump and paid the entry fee to negotiate. That is why he is avoiding the question. Now, in Bill C‑31, the government is once again bending the knee to President Trump by amending the Global Minimum Tax Act to exempt American companies.

Does it trouble the minister that this coincides with a decision by Brookfield, the Prime Minister's baby, to move its headquarters to the United States?

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

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, finally, on June 16, 2022, the Chair clarified that establishing a proven leak is not necessary: The reasonable appearance of early third-party access may be enough to establish a prima facie breach. I respectfully submit that the facts before us meet that very threshold. The chronology of events leads us to believe that parliamentarians' rights have been violated.

On April 8, 2026, Air Canada publicly announced the implementation of a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints. In its economic statement on April 28, 2026, the government signalled its intention to reform precisely this type of mechanism. On May 6, 2026, the government tabled Bill C-31, which contains provisions directly related to these changes.

This series of events raises serious questions. How could a regulated entity not only have anticipated but also operationalized a mechanism aligned with legislative intentions which, at the time, had not been shared with Parliament or even made public by the government?

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am sure you will agree that this cannot be a mere coincidence or a random or uncertain interpretation. The facts and the sequence in which they occurred line up perfectly. First, Air Canada announced its initiative. Second, the government made an announcement 20 days later in its economic statement and third, the government tabled Bill C-31.

This situation echoes concerns raised in previous Speaker's rulings, namely, the actual or perceived granting of an informational advantage to a third party to the detriment of members of Parliament. As Speaker Scheer stated on March 3, 2014, members must be the first to see new legislation.

However, in this case, not only were members not the first to be informed, but specific action was taken outside the House before the government even disclosed the existence of this legislation. That raises not only the possibility of premature disclosure but also the reasonable perception that an external party was given privileged access to legislative content, which, according to the practices of the House, is sufficient to establish a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is not for the Chair to determine whether a leak occurred or to identify the source. The question is more limited: Does the evidence presented and documented support a finding of a potential breach of the privileges of the House? I would suggest that, in this case, the answer is obvious.

The sequence of events, the nature of the facts and the alignment between Air Canada's actions and the government's subsequent legislation raise, at the very least, a serious issue requiring careful examination, particularly since, according to the lobbyist registry, there were over 100 meetings between Air Canada representatives and government officials, among others.

In these circumstances, in keeping with established practice, I ask that you find that this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. If necessary, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.