Bill C-4

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure

Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act to reduce the marginal personal income tax rate on the lowest tax bracket to 14.5% for the 2025 taxation year and to 14% for the 2026 and subsequent taxation years.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act and other related Regulations to implement a temporary GST new housing rebate for first-time home buyers.
Part 3 repeals Part 1 of the Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act and the Fuel Charge Regulations .
Part 4 amends the Canada Elections Act to make changes to the requirements relating to political parties’ policies for the protection of personal information.

Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-11

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised on Friday afternoon by the deputy government House leader concerning certain amendments made by the Standing Committee on National Defence to Bill C-11.

The six amendments contested by the honourable member for London West, almost 10 weeks after they were reported by the committee, have one thing in common: They were originally ruled out of order by the committee's chair. Let me remind the House that a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible.

Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3327 of the Debates, on an amendment that the committee had made to Bill C-4, you reached a different conclusion from that that the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had reached concerning the need for a royal recommendation. Similarly, on December 2, 2025, you reached a different conclusion from that of the chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security concerning the application of the so-called parent act rule to an amendment to Bill C-12 in a ruling found on page 4435 of the Debates.

The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority.

Bill C-11, as introduced, makes provision for the appointment, when necessary, of an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Moreover, Bill C-11 makes provision related to the responsibility of the judge advocate general and the chief military judge.

Amendment CPC-1 would make provision of a similar effect concerning vacancies in the office of the judge advocate general. In these respects, I would argue that the amendment is consistent with the scope and principle of Bill C-11, as the role of the judge advocate general is integral to the scope of the bill. To illustrate the importance, it was included in the summary of the legislation. Additionally, the importance of legislation allowing for acting roles in the Canadian Armed Forces' chains of command were addressed with the provision for an acting provost marshal general, an acting director of military prosecutions and an acting director of defence counsel services. Not only is this within the scope of the study, it fixes an unintended omission of the Liberals in the drafting phase and would ensure accountability for a role that has been vacant for extended periods of time in the past. This amendment would ensure consistency across all leaders within the military justice system.

As the deputy government House leader observed, this would require the amendment of a provision of the National Defence Act, which was not subject to other amendments in Bill C-11. While she argued that that would breach the parent act rule, I would disagree with her on this point and refer the Chair to the ruling of Mr. Speaker Regan, delivered October 24, 2018, where he explained, starting on page 22797 of the Debates:

The Parent Act rule, the idea that an amendment should not amend an act or a section not already amended by a bill, rests on a presumption that such an amendment would not be relevant to the bill. This can be true. Often, such amendments attempt to deal with matters not referenced in the bill, and this is improper.

However, there are also occasions when an amendment is relevant to the subject matter of a bill and in keeping with its scope but can only be accomplished by modifying a section of the parent act not originally touched by the bill or even an entirely different act not originally touched by the bill....

The parent act rule was never intended to be applied blindly as a substitute for proper judgment as to the relevance of an amendment.

Along similar lines, amendment CPC-16 would add a timeline for the designation of a chief military judge when the office becomes vacant. What is interesting here is that the 120-day time frame in amendment CPC-16 is a product of a Liberal subamendment, and that amendment, as amended, was unanimously adopted, including by the Liberal members present voting for it that day.

Elsewhere, Bill C-11 makes provision for the appointment of a victim's liaison officer, who would have the responsibility of, in the words of the chief of the defence staff at committee, “ensuring they have the appropriate support to navigate the justice system”.

Amendment CPC-10 would make similar provision for the appointment of a liaison officer for the accused. This would be consistent with Bill C-11's proposal to ensure that individuals from outside the justice system who find themselves interacting with that system have the appropriate support to navigate it, which the chief of the defence staff testified about herself. As such, I would submit that this amendment is within the scope and principle of Bill C-11.

Next, there is amendment BQ-2, concerning an inspector general for sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Bill C-11 is largely about addressing sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces. Measures such as an inspector general for military sexual misconduct would, I respectfully submit, fall within the scope and principle of a bill that addresses military sexual misconduct. It too was unanimously supported by committee.

With respect to the deputy government House leader's concern that amendment BQ-2 would require a royal recommendation, I would argue that the amendment was carefully drawn up to impose an obligation on the Minister of National Defence to prepare and table a report concerning a plan to establish such an office. To be clear, while this amendment would get the wheels turning in this direction, it would not directly cause the appointment of, or the expenditure involved with, an inspector general. This approach is consistent with any number of private member's bills in recent years concerning frameworks, strategies and plans that have not offended the financial prerogative of the Crown.

Amendment BQ-3, meanwhile, would amend clause 18 with a view to increasing the pool of potential military judges, something that clause 18 of the bill was drafted to do in the first place. Furthermore, the amendment would see a serving officer or non-commissioned member appointed as a military judge released from the forces to enhance their independence. Bill C-11 contains other measures to enhance the independence of military justice system actors and to vouchsafe this independence relative to the judge advocate general. In my view, this amendment is entirely consistent with the spirit, scope and principle of Bill C-11.

Turning to amendment NDP-4, sponsored by someone who now sits in the Liberal caucus, this amendment would ensure that everyone involved in the investigation or prosecution of the offences spelled out in subclause 70(2) of Bill C-11 has training or experience in trauma-informed approaches. I would point the Chair to the committee testimony of the Attorney General of Canada in an answer to a Liberal colleague's question. He stated the following:

We need to make sure that there are systems that are ready with people who are trauma-informed, with people who have appropriate training and with people who have safeguards in place to ensure that people can share their stories, know that they're going to be taken seriously and know that they'll be given whatever testimonial aids may be necessary for them to fully share their perspective.

A now Liberal MP brought forward an amendment voted for by Liberal MPs to give effect to the Liberal minister's views, which were offered in response to a Liberal caucus colleague's concerns, and now we have the deputy House leader of the Liberals trying to throw the whole thing in the recycling bin.

What is actually going on over there? Is the Prime Minister trying to use a stolen majority to force Liberals to swallow whole the very ideas they backed mere months ago? Is this a sign of what Canadians should expect from the Prime Minister, who has shown little regard for Parliament now that he is flexing power? However, I digress.

In summary, the Liberal deputy House leader is seeking your intervention to undo key portions of the national defence committee's good work on Bill C‑11, much of which her own Liberal colleagues have supported, on the premise that the committee chair's ruling has been overturned. However, as I have laid out, a committee chair's rulings are not infallible, and in the present circumstances, the amendments concerned satisfy the necessary procedural requirements.

I would ask you to find the defence committee's third report to be entirely in order and to reject the Liberal government's challenge to usurp the work that was done by committee members in good faith for all survivors of military sexual assault and misconduct.

Strong and Free Elections Act

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

moved that Bill C-25, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and to enact An Act to change the names of certain electoral districts, 2026, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the House of Commons today to speak to Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. Bill C-25 introduces amendments to the Canada Elections Act that would bolster the strength and resilience of Canada's electoral system. As we all know, one of the cornerstones of our democracy is our electoral system, and at the foundation of that system is the Canada Elections Act. Canada's democracy is one of the most stable and strongest in the world, but it would be unwise to take this for granted. We must always be on guard for threats that could call into question the validity of our elections.

As we all know, the world in 2026 is much different from just a few years ago. The world has changed, and we, as guardians of Canada's democratic system, must change with it. The Canada Elections Act is already recognized worldwide for its robust administrative procedures, strong political financing regime and strict spending limits, but we know that no democracy, including ours, is immune to growing threats to elections that attempt to undermine confidence and erode trust in our democratic electoral processes. Malicious actors can seek to disrupt our democratic processes and elections from anywhere in the world at any time.

Despite these challenges, the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions confirmed that our elections remain secure. However, we must continue to ensure that Canada's democracy remains one of the strongest in the world and that it continues to be protected from ongoing threats wherever they arise.

That is why, in accordance with the long-standing tradition of proposing ongoing improvements to the Canada Elections Act, our government has proposed priority amendments to deal with these threats.

I want to take a moment to salute other parties in this House. I think the process that has led to the introduction of this bill has been a model. I am grateful for the input and look forward to the participation in the debate of my colleagues from all parties in the House. In fact, that reflects our shared responsibility, all 343 of us in this chamber, to protect, safeguard and cherish our democracy. This is perhaps our most solemn and important role.

It is essential that we build upon the knowledge and experience of experts when proposing changes to our democratic electoral system. Through Bill C-25, our government is acting on recommendations from the public inquiry into foreign interference, the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Canada elections. Bill C-25 will further strengthen and secure Canada's federal elections through several new measures.

Allow me to give a few examples. First, the bill will protect electors from unlawful attempts to influence their vote, not only once an election is called, but at all times. Second, the amendments will protect nomination and leadership contests from threats, including undue foreign influence, bribery and intimidation. Third, we are closing potential channels for foreign funding in electoral processes. Fourth, the bill will ban sophisticated deepfakes of electoral actors and officials that intend to mislead Canadians. Fifth, the amendments will mitigate long ballots, which challenge the administration and accessibility of federal elections for voters, candidates and election workers. Sixth, we are adding new privacy policy requirements for all federal political parties, including new disclosure requirements in the event of a data breach. Seventh, Bill C-25 will strengthen the commissioner of Canada elections' enforcement mandate by providing new investigative tools and increasing administrative monetary penalties for violations of the act.

I hope my colleagues will allow me to explain these measures in greater detail. As I mentioned at the outset, election interference can occur at any time, not just during election periods. Bill C‑25 addresses this issue in several ways. First, the act will expand the prohibition on undue foreign influence, offering or accepting a bribe, misleading publications falsely purporting to be issued by a certain person, and broadcasting outside Canada with intent to unduly influence voters at any time, not just during the election period. This protection will now also apply to nomination contests in our ridings and to leadership contests.

In addition, Bill C-25 would extend the extraterritorial application of certain offences to ensure that malicious actors operating outside of Canada can also be investigated and held accountable for breaking the law. For example, someone outside of Canada impersonating a candidate, publishing misleading information purporting to be from a candidate, lying about the rules of our elections or hacking into an electoral computer system to disrupt our elections could be prosecuted even if they do not reside in Canada.

Bill C-25 also proposes important new financing rules to increase transparency and prevent anonymous, foreign and dark money from entering into our democratic system. These include banning the use of crypto asset contributions, money orders and prepaid instruments such as prepaid credit cards or store gift cards for all activities by political actors and for regulated activities by third parties.

Importantly, under Bill C-25, third parties would only be permitted to use contributions they have received from Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pay for regulated election expenses. This means third parties could not use funds received from other third parties, such as corporations or businesses, for regulated activities. However, we understand that not all third parties receive contributions, and some may want to use their own revenue for regulated expenses. In those instances, third parties whose contributions represent 10% or less of their annual revenue would be able to use their own revenues to pay for regulated activities. These amendments would enhance transparency into the source of funds and mitigate the risk of foreign or untraced money entering our elections.

The next element I would like to highlight is how Bill C-25 would tackle the challenge of disinformation. We have all seen it. We have all lived it. Disinformation is a key tactic that aims to fuel discord and erode public trust in our democratic processes. Disinformation seeks to manipulate voters through intentional falsehoods, often spread online. The Chief Electoral Officer, in recent years, called disinformation about the electoral process the “most important” threat to Elections Canada's mandate, and security agencies have noted that disinformation is a persistent threat to election integrity.

Moreover, the final report from the Public Inquiry into Foreign Interference in Federal Electoral Processes and Democratic Institutions states that, “If we do not find ways of addressing it, misinformation and disinformation have the ability to distort our discourse, change our views, and shape our society...it is no exaggeration to say that at this juncture, information manipulation (whether foreign or not) poses the single biggest risk to our democracy.”

The amendments proposed in Bill C‑25 will strengthen our democratic institutions through new and expanded prohibitions designed to counter this threat. Specifically, the bill prohibits knowingly spreading false information about election activities or the voting process with the intent to disrupt the conduct of an election or affect its results, while respecting the principles of freedom of expression and open dialogue that are at the heart of our democracy.

This prohibition includes knowingly producing or publishing false or misleading information with the aim of disrupting the conduct of an election or its results. That includes information about who is eligible to vote in an election; the voter registration process; when, where and how to vote; who to vote for; the procedure for becoming a candidate; how votes are validated or counted; and the results of an election.

Another vector for disinformation is the potential misuse of technology, which Bill C-25 also addresses. As we all know, technology has helped revolutionize democracies around the world, but it also carries certain risks. For example, AI-generated content is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish from reality. When combined with disinformation, AI-generated content such as deepfakes can pose a significant threat. Today, with a computer and a few keystrokes, malicious actors can generate highly realistic, yet fake, video, audio and text content.

To address this emerging issue, Bill C-25 makes amendments to the prohibition on impersonation for the purpose of capturing video footage and creating manipulated audio and video content, such as deepfakes, and extends its application to nomination and leadership contestants, who are also vulnerable to such threats.

Bill C-25 also broadens the scope of the prohibition on interfering with a computer system or database in order to, for example, launch a denial-of-service attack to influence the results of an election. The prohibition now includes the act of disrupting the conduct of an election.

That is one of the many examples that show just how essential Bill C-25 is to ensuring that our electoral system can respond appropriately to contemporary threats.

Another example of this is the way the bill would address the challenges posed by unduly long ballots. When Canadians go to the polls, they expect to see the names of candidates on the ballot who have a legitimate desire to represent their constituents if elected. This is foundational to our system of government. However, in ridings targeted by those who seek to create unduly long ballots, this is not the case. Instead, Canadians are inundated with the names of individuals who have no desire or intention of ever representing the interests of constituents.

Not only do these long ballots create significant accessibility issues for electors and election workers, especially those with disabilities, but they can also delay the vote count. This is why we paid close attention to the study on unduly long ballots by my colleagues from all sides on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and took note of what the witnesses had to say. I wish to express my gratitude to the members of the committee for their excellent work in this regard.

I am happy to note that what has been proposed in Bill C-25 aligns with all of the legislative recommendations from the committee. This includes the following important measures. First, individuals who seek to become candidates would require 100 unique supporting signatures from electors in their riding. Second, a candidate's official agent could only represent one candidate per election in an electoral district. Third, false information in nomination papers would be prohibited.

At a time when security is increasingly a concern in our political system, Bill C-25 proposes new measures to protect people. For example, the home addresses of returning officers would no longer be made public, candidates would be granted greater reimbursement for personal security expenses, and the rules for regulated fundraising events would be changed. We are seeing people's addresses published online, and harassing behaviour is occurring that limits the rights of people to participate in the democratic process. This is a security concern that must be addressed. In the case of a regulated fundraising event, information about the event would be publicly released, as it must, after it has occurred, including the names of participants and the municipality and province in which the event took place.

The next aspect of Bill C-25 that I would like to discuss concerns the stringent new requirements it imposes on federal political parties regarding the protection of personal information. These requirements are based on part 4 of Bill C-4, which received royal assent on March 12 and which clarified the exclusive regime governing federal political parties' dealings with personal information under the Canada Elections Act. It also made non-compliance with the party's policies subject to the act's administrative monetary penalty system. That means that a federal political party, or any person acting on the party's behalf, could face a monetary penalty if they do not comply with their own policy, depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the commissioner of Canada elections. It is important to note that Bill C-25 proposes increasing the maximum amount of the administrative monetary penalties for both individuals and entities.

Now I would like to explain some of the new policy requirements imposed on federal political parties as a condition for registration.

First, to ensure greater transparency and accessibility, each party must publish its privacy policy, written in plain language in English and French. Furthermore, to make it easy for Canadians to understand, the policy must use examples to explain how the party collects and uses Canadians' personal information.

Second, federal political parties must also include additional measures to safeguard personal information. Personal information must be protected through physical, organizational and technological security safeguards, such as locked filing cabinets and secure areas, document encryption and password protection, and a strict need-to-know rule for sharing personal information, based on how sensitive the information is.

Third, each federal political party's policy must require appropriate steps to be taken in the event of a data breach, including the loss of, unauthorized access to or unauthorized disclosure of personal information. While we would hope that this never happens, an individual whose personal information has been lost, accessed or disclosed must be notified if the breach creates a real risk of significant harm.

Fourth, privacy policies will also require parties to ensure that any third party receiving personal information from a federal political party, such as a supplier or contractor, has equivalent safeguards in place.

To ensure accountability, since the passage of Bill C‑4, each party must have a designated privacy officer responsible for conducting an annual review of the party's compliance with its policy. The Chief Electoral Officer must hold an annual meeting on the protection of personal information by federal political parties, and the privacy officer or a representative must attend. A party's policy must also cover relevant training provided to the party and those acting on its behalf.

I am going to conclude, having a missed a couple of other important measures in the bill, by just summing up in this way.

This is an important moment. It is a moment when all members of the chamber get to express themselves about our democracy. We have heard from the foreign interference commission inquiry, the Chief Electoral Officer and the commissioner of Elections Canada , and now it is up to Parliament to decide whether these measures are meeting the moment in terms of protecting our democracy.

I would observe only that much different debates are going on in democratic institutions in other places, and I am particularly grateful that here in Canada we are working to have strong, free and open elections in this country, where everyone is welcome to participate and may participate in our democracy.

Opposition Motion—Fuel Taxes

[Bienvenu-Olivier Ntumba, Liberal, Mont-Saint-Bruno—L’Acadie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our government has stepped up its efforts to make life more affordable for Canadians because we need to take action and get moving. The current global environment is evolving rapidly, and there is a lot of uncertainty around the global economy. Canada is no exception, and Canadians and Canadian businesses are seeing this every day. Our government is focusing on what it can control: building a stronger economy and making life more affordable for Canadians. We have introduced a number of measures to lower the cost of living and enable Canadians to keep more of their hard-earned money.

Let us talk about the excise tax announcement. It is great that the Leader of the Opposition made sure to mention gas prices in the motion. The military conflicts going on around the world are affecting refinery capacity and oil and gas transport networks. The government is mindful of the fact that while these conflicts may be happening in distant lands, consumers have been forced to pay higher prices at the pump here in Canada. We know that this is creating uncertainty, causing stress and putting pressure on families trying to make ends meet.

As the Prime Minister indicated earlier today, our government will provide significant relief for the cost of fuel by suspending the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel starting on Monday, April 20, and until Labour Day on September 7. Currently, the federal excise tax is 10¢ per litre for gasoline and four cents per litre for diesel. The suspension of this tax is expected to save Canadians about $5.75 on a full 50-litre tank of regular gasoline and up to $2.30 on a full tank of diesel. This represents total relief of more than $2.3 billion. The price of gas, among many things, reflects current circumstances abroad that have an impact on Canada, which requires targeted intervention from the government to help Canadian families.

By reducing the cost of gas and diesel directly at the pump, we are taking a clear step to support families as they face the current hardships. The measure will cost a little more than $2 billion, so it will not jeopardize government finances or our other efforts to build the strongest economy in the G7.

The provinces also have their own gas and diesel taxes and, if they want, they can implement their own measures too. What we are doing is using the federal fiscal situation, which is better due in part to higher oil prices, to provide targeted support to households and businesses. Note that this support is in addition to other measures already in place. We know that too many families are struggling to make ends meet at the end of the month. People do not need abstract promises. They need real, immediate and lasting support. That is exactly what our government is providing.

That is why we launched the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, which replaces and improves upon the old GST credit. It will provide more support to more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians.

In real terms, starting this spring, a one-time payment equivalent to a 50% increase in the annual value of the GST credit for 2025 and 2026 will be paid out. That amounts to $3.1 billion of immediate relief in the pockets of families. In addition, as of July of this year, the value of the benefit will increase by 25% for five years, adding another $8.6 billion in additional support. In total, a family of four will receive $1,890 this year and around $1,400 per year over the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 in subsequent years.

This is real support to pay for groceries, bills and everyday expenses. That is also why we eliminated the federal consumer fuel charge, a measure that has been in place for a year now and was formalized with the passage of Bill C‑4. Under that same bill, we also lowered taxes for nearly 22 million Canadian families by reducing the rate of the first personal income tax bracket from 15% to 14% in 2026. That is a savings of $420 per person and $840 for a two-income family.

Under Bill C‑4, we also eliminated the GST for first-time homebuyers on new homes valued at $1 million or less, while reducing the GST for homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. We have also reached an agreement with the Government of Ontario to further reduce taxes for homebuyers.

The government has also taken concrete measures to make the banking system fairer and more affordable for Canadians. Since March, consumers can no longer be charged more than $10 in fees when there are insufficient funds in their personal chequing account to cover a payment. Banks can no longer charge this fee more than once over a two-business-day period for the same account. Most importantly, no NSF fees can be charged when the overdraft is less than $10. This is another way our government is helping Canadians where it really counts.

The government's measures to promote affordability, including the one announced today, clearly demonstrate how the government is helping Canadian families. As the Prime Minister said today, we cannot control what other nations do, but we can control what we build for ourselves. What we are doing here is building a strong and affordable Canada, so that our country has the strongest economy in the G7.

Lawful Access Act, 2026

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North seemed to be lamenting, in his extensive speech, that the Conservatives were not automatically co-operating. He went on to list a number of bills that, as my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola said, faced scrutiny in the House, which I believe is our job.

What the member neglected to mention is the fact that Bill C-5 was passed in five parliamentary sitting days, giving the Prime Minister extraordinary powers. Bill C-4 was brought in through a ways and means motion first, and the government waited six months to bring it to the chamber. We passed it and co-operated on it all the way through.

What is so difficult to understand? When good legislation is brought before the chamber, this side of the House co-operates and moves it through. When there are issues with legislation, we do His Majesty's loyal work and oppose it.

Amendments to Bill C-8

[Laila Goodridge, Conservative, Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that this is a very important point of order, and I would recommend that everyone stop to listen.

Standing Order 117 says, “The Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee shall maintain order in the committee, deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee”.

Secondly, a committee chair's ruling on the admissibility of an amendment is not infallible. Mr. Speaker, in a ruling on November 3, 2025, at page 3,327 of the Debates, you yourself reached a different conclusion than the chair of the Standing Committee on Finance had concerning the need for royal recommendation for an amendment that the committee made to Bill C-4. The test for the Speaker's intervention in committee reports concerning bills does not rest simply on whether a committee chair's ruling was overturned, but rather on whether the committee, in adopting the impugned amendment, exceeded its authority.

The parliamentary secretary referred the Chair to paragraph 16.74 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, which provides that an amendment to a bill is out of order “if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” The parliamentary secretary, however, did not offer any argument or reasoning for the amendments being allegedly beyond the scope of the bill. Mr. Speaker, I think you should reject the government's argument on that basis alone, since it is asking you to overturn a committee decision without any true procedural justification. As Janse and LeBlanc wrote at paragraph 16.96, “The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage.”

Indeed, as Speaker Milliken mentioned on March 14, 2008, at page 4182 of the Debates, “successive Speakers have been reluctant to intervene in the proceedings of committees except in highly exceptional circumstances.” That is, in fact, a commonly understood principle in this House, but the parliamentary secretary failed to offer any justification meeting that threshold of exceptional circumstances. Indeed, the same former Speaker explained on November 27, 2002, at page 1950 of the Debates, “it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.”

However, should you disagree with me on the ending of your inquiry here, Mr. Speaker, allow me to offer submissions about how these Conservative amendments are actually within the scope of this bill. Let us get our bearings. First, footnote 164 on page 63 of Janse and LeBlanc refers to the scope of a bill as “meaning the schemes by which the principles of the bill are achieved.”

Paragraph 28.81 of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 25th edition, expands upon the concept. It states:

The scope of a bill represents the reasonable limits of its collective purposes, as defined by its existing clauses and schedules. In particular cases, difficult questions of judgment may arise. The scope of a bill, particularly of a bill with several purposes, may be wider than its long title, although the long title may help to determine the scope.

The same authority continues, explaining the United Kingdom's practice:

Standing Order No 65 gives a general authority to any committee on a bill to amend the bill as it sees fit (even if this entails amending the bill's long title in consequence), provided that the amendments are relevant to the subject-matter of the bill, that is to say, within the scope of the bill.

Bill C-8 is a broad bill, touching on a number of facets of the digital world. For our purposes, let us focus on part 1, containing amendments to the Telecommunications Act and making provisions for a variety of measures, including empowering the Governor in Council and the Minister of Industry, respectively, to make orders and give direction regarding the security of Canada's telecommunications system. What amendments CPC-2, CPC-5 and CPC-15 do collectively is require prior judicial authorization for certain of those orders, including for decisions of the cabinet or the minister to impose a gag order on Canadians.

I would submit that nothing about this changes or expands the scope of Bill C-8. Instead, they oppose conditions on executive decision-making, without changing the nature or scope of the decisions that might be made under the authorities proposed in the bill. In a ruling given on October 26, 2006, Mr. Speaker Milliken held at page 4308 of the Debates, that:

I cannot conclude that an amendment which provides for an appeal of a decision by the minister is contrary to the principle of the bill. As I see it, such an amendment places a condition on how decisions of the minister are exercised, but the principle of the bill remains intact.

Another precedent concerns a former bill, Bill C-483, which proposed to transfer decision-making authority over the temporary escorted absences of convicted murderers from penitentiary wardens, who are officials of the executive branch, to the quasi-judicial national Parole Board. The public safety committee reported that bill back to the House with amendments that would instead have had the decision-making responsibilities shared between institution heads and the Parole Board.

Mr. Speaker, your predecessor found the committee's amendments to have been in order, commenting on May 2, 2014, at page 4880 of the Debates, that:

I can see nothing in the bill as amended by the committee which would alter the aims and intent of the bill, namely the limiting of the power of institutional heads to grant escorted temporary absences and providing a role for the National Parole Board in the granting of such absences.

In the present case before you, Mr. Speaker, the government itself contemplates a rule for the federal court elsewhere in clause 2 of Bill C-8, namely, in its proposed section 15.9 of the Telecommunications Act, making provisions for the judicial review of the cabinet and ministers' orders. The amendments to Bill C-8, challenged by the parliamentary secretary, are like the 2006 precedent. This is the simple creation of a condition on how the decisions of a minister are exercised without changing the types of decisions that could be made and, like the 2014 precedent, simply adjusting to the responsibilities of the decision-makers who each already have assigned roles within the proposed statutory scheme.

To sum up, the parliamentary secretary's point of order should simply be dismissed for its failure to advance any procedural grounds for why the public safety committee's third report might be procedurally flawed. In the alternative, the impugned amendments are all, I submit, within the scope of the bill and have a nature consistent with committee amendments, which your predecessors have found to be within the scope of the bills concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I do not think I have seen this before, so perhaps the hon. parliamentary secretary, at some point later in debate, or the Speaker can answer the question I have.

Is it at all normal that we would have a point of order to review amendments after committee work has closed on Bill C-8 to ask if it is within scope? Those questions are usually taken up at the moment when the amendments are brought forward. The clerk of the committee and the chair of the committee judge whether the amendment proposed is within scope.

I know retroactivity seems to be a big thing these days, and we just passed Bill C-4, which came into effect 26 years ago, but I question the validity of this point of order.

The Economy

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I have good news for the hon. member. Just yesterday, our Bill C-4 on affordability measures got royal assent in our Senate, which is fantastic news. That means 22 million Canadians will receive a tax cut on their income tax, saving $840 for dual-income families. Families that are trying to purchase their first home will save up to $50,000 on homes under $1 million. That is good news for Canadians all across this country.

We have also moved forward with the groceries and essentials benefit, which will save families just under $1,900 this year. That is—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

Rideau Hall

March 12, 2026

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Mary May Simon, Governor General of Canada, signified royal assent by written declaration to the bill listed in the Schedule to this letter on the 12th day of March, 2026, at 4:36 p.m.

Yours sincerely,

Ken MacKillop

Secretary to the Governor General

The schedule indicates the bill assented to on Thursday, March 12, was Bill C‑4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate as follows:That a message be sent to the House of Commons to acquaint it that, in relation to Bill C-4, An Act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure, the Senate does not insist on its amendment with which the House of Commons disagreed.

Making Life More Affordable for Canadians Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am so disappointed that the government is not willing to consider sober second thought, having put forward such a scandalous abuse of omnibus budget bills as is found in Bill C-4.

What we have in Bill C-4, which is titled the affordability act, are many measures that are mostly about affordability, but magically, there is this bizarre inclusion of amendments to the Canada Elections Act.

Part 4 of this bill contains amendments to the Canada Elections Act. What does the Canada Elections Act have to do with the cost of living?

It is not just bizarre that we find in part 4 of Bill C-4, which is the affordability act, unaccountably, changes to the Canada Elections Act. The content of those changes is, and I will use the word again, scandalous. Canadians will be scandalized, and it is unfortunate that the way of going in this Parliament has been for things to be passed so quickly that people do not even know what they have passed.

Part 4 of Bill C-4 is all about one thing: removing any thought that there is any requirement on the part of any federal political party in this country to protect the personal private information of Canadians. The bill is a bit of overkill, one might say. At one point in part 4 of Bill C-4, it says that any of the provisions for protection of privacy are “deemed never to have come into force and is repealed.”

If they were deemed never to have come into force, I suppose it is a bit of overkill to also make sure they are repealed, but it gets worse. The bill then says that part 4 of Bill C-4 will come into force in the year 2000.

I remember the day this bill was tabled in June. I took around the hard copy of Bill C-4 to various friends on the side of the House of the Liberal Party and said, “Look at this. Why does this bill have to come into force in the year 2000?” People would say that it must be a typo, and I would say, “No, that is not a typo, my friend. That is a time machine.”

I have never seen before in this place that a bill in the future tense would come into force 26 years ago.

There is nothing extraordinary about the fact that there are things I have never seen before.

I am not the only one who has never seen this.

However, for the moment, this is a part of the bill that strikes me as odd.

The Senate looked at it and asked why, buried in the affordability act, there were amendments to the Elections Act. It is all well and good that, in the preamble the Speaker just read, the government says it is sending this back to the Senate and that they have no business in this, letting them slap them on the wrist for thinking they can presume to tell anybody in this place about the Elections Act, but the government had this coming and was well overdue to start looking at sections of omnibus bills. I think it is scandalous that we did not.

I know a lot of senators were disturbed by Bill C-12. They looked at Bill C-12 in committee, and they said that it had not been properly studied and that it would abuse the rights of refugees, but they held back. They thought that the government would not want to accept their amendments, so they did not make amendments, but they did put on the record that a subcommittee was concerned.

It would have been tough for the Senate to make amendments because the pressure was on them to not make amendments. In fact, the leader of the government in the Senate went so far as to misstate to other senators that Bill C-4 had been carried unanimously in this place.

I noticed they were careful in the preamble we just heard to refer to unanimous support from recognized parties. The Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc were happy to carry this unanimously, but my objections were recorded on the record, even in the so-called unanimous consent motion. It says, “that the opposition of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands be noted”.

Why do I dig in my heels? Why do I say hurrah for the senators who put forward some common-sense amendments? What is wrong with the government that it will not accept the Senate amendments?

If one has not looked at the Senate amendments, standing by what I have said, it is extraordinary that the Government of Canada would say it is bringing into effect a bill that would take effect 26 years ago. What kind of offence has the Liberal Party committed in the last 26 years that would require a time machine to say that laws that we might have had to protect the personal information of Canadians did not ever exist, were never carried and, on top of that, took effect in the year 2000?

The Senate amendment just says that three years from when Bill C-4 takes effect, three years from now, the government must come up with a way of protecting the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties.

This was not that long ago, so I will cite the source, but there was an iPolitics news story from March 3 of this year where the leader of the government in the House, and of course I will not say his name but we know it, said, after citing that he was the former national director of the Liberal Party, “I can assure you that, for our part, and I assume all parties follow the same basic standard, we essentially comply with PIPEDA”, referring to the acronym for the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

There is currently a court case in British Columbia because the privacy commissioner for British Columbia has said that this is a matter of law. Provincial political parties in British Columbia have to abide by the protection of privacy information for Canadians.

We know that there was a study before the ethics committee back in 2018. The study was entitled “Breach of Personal Information Involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook”.

That particular case study should make us, as parliamentarians, and as people who believe in democracy, deeply concerned that the personal and private information of Canadians can be misused in the hands of those who develop systems, such as Cambridge Analytica did, to target, use algorithms, distort and deliver information that is misinformation directed to particular people who are likely to believe, as they are pre-inclined and predisposed to believe, that misinformation. In that case, in that study, the committee pointed to the need of protecting the personal information of Canadians held by federal political parties.

I will not disagree with the government for one minute, but it would be far better to not bury in an omnibus bill on affordability the taking away of rights regarding the personal and private information of Canadians held by federal political parties. It would be far better to be open about it and say that they are going to amend the Canada Elections Act and talk about the personal and private information of Canadians.

I think the government should be ashamed. Every Liberal, and every floor crosser who has joined this gang, should be ashamed of being associated with a piece of subterfuge as vile as saying that this is an act on affordability, to not look over there at part 4, that it has nothing to do with us, that it is something they are doing about privacy information and they are making sure that it took effect 26 years ago.

If they had nothing to be ashamed of, why would they not bring forward a bill that, on its own, is about updating the Canada Elections Act and that clearly asks Canadians what they want us to do with their personal and private information, those of us who are federal political parties? Certainly, the Green Party tries very hard to abide by all the personal and private information protections, as though the law already applied to us clearly, and we will continue to do so.

This is an abomination. This is a very reasonable amendment from the Senate that, three years from now, once the bill is passed, we would have a better plan of action. The government's motion today said it is planning to bring forward something soon. Will that be sooner than three years from now?

How can the government possibly object to an amendment from the Senate that says to get its act in order within the next three years? We should, in this place, absolutely refuse to accept the government's advice to reject Senate amendments. If there ever was a time for sober second thought, it is now. This is embarrassing. Are all recognized parties, the Conservatives, the Liberals and the Bloc, okay with passing a law that turns the clock back 26 years? Come on. This is embarrassing. I ask members to please accept the Senate amendments.

Message from the Senate

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill with an amendment to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill C-4, an act respecting certain affordability measures for Canadians and another measure.

Copies of the amendment are available at the table.

The Economy

[Leslie Church, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour]

Mr. Speaker, the government is squarely focused on opportunity. Opportunity means good job opportunities and affordable homes.

As members might know, Bill C-4, our bill, is in front of the Senate right now, and it would eliminate GST for first-time homebuyers on homes up to $1 million. We have a bill in front of the House right now, Bill C-20, for Build Canada Homes, because we are focused on making sure that this generation of Canadians, millennials in particular, can get into the housing market and have an affordable home to build.

The Conservatives seem to want to stall our housing agenda every step of the way. They should get on board.

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, on the budget implementation act, I really have three things I want to talk about. I want to talk a bit about the process and the committee process that took us to what may be the last day that we debate this bill. I want to talk about some of the things that Conservatives agree with that are contained in the BIA, and I want to talk about those with which we disagree.

I want to begin by being clear on the parliamentary record that what happened with the debate on the BIA in many respects is a credit, if I may say so, to the parliamentary process by which parties agree to a work plan within committee and have a robust work plan that calls for officials and ministers to appear. We did not really have time to call very many experts outside of the public service itself, but when the bill was referred to committee, the committee got to work and got to work collaboratively.

The reason I bring this up is that it has been falsely and repeatedly said in this chamber that this bill was held up by the opposition. It was not. There is only one party that has filibustered and delayed business at the finance committee. It is actually the Liberal Party, which did so on Bill C-4. On three different occasions, they filibustered their own bill.

I am being heckled by the member for Winnipeg North. I invite him to check the record, maybe check with his parliamentary secretary.

Motions in Amendment

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

Mr. Speaker, I usually begin a speech by saying it is an honour or a pleasure to stand to speak to the bill before us, but I am so deeply appalled and offended by what has been going on in this place since June that I have a hard time speaking without the rage making my voice tremble.

Bill C-15, the omnibus budget bill, is offensive at every level. It is very much an omnibus bill. A budget implementation bill is supposed to implement a budget and not contain surprises, things that were not in the budget and were not even mentioned. However, we are presented with them here and it is all supposed to be fast-tracked. It was fast-tracked by a UC motion, and it was done on Friday the 13th when I was unable to object to the fast-tracking of this bill. I do not regret going to Tumbler Ridge. It was important to be there together with the other party leaders, but I deeply regret that the governing party chose that moment to put forward a unanimous consent motion to fast-track the review of this bill at report stage and third reading.

It is, as we have heard and as Canadians have heard, a bill of over 600 pages. I remember the omnibus budget bill of spring 2012, Bill C-38. I was appalled when Stephen Harper tried to push it through and did in fact push it through. It took longer to debate, in fairness, but it was over 400 pages. The omnibus budget implementation act of spring 2012 was over 400 pages. Here we have the omnibus budget bill to budget 2025-26 and it is over 600 pages, with much of it, as I said, unanticipated. It touches on more than 20 different laws, bills as diverse as anything we have heard of. It deals with the fast-tracked expropriation of lands next to Alto high-speed rail. I support high-speed rail, but I think we needed more time to study this in the House.

We have changes made here to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. My attempts to put forward amendments to that in the finance committee were summarily defeated, but we never properly discussed them. The public has not heard as much as a peep about the things in this budget implementation act, Bill C-15, which would change things for the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, weakening environmental protections, particularly around a practice that has been under way since 1988. The act has been around for a long time.

To change it to say we want equivalency with the provinces so that we do not duplicate is a good thing, but it needs to be reviewed now and then. This bill says, no, we are never going to review it. That is it. There is no sunset on that. Equivalency goes forward. A lot of environmental law experts would have liked to testify to that. They would have liked to testify at the environment committee about that, but no amendments occurred to the changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that are included in Bill C-15.

It is egregious, as we have heard from other speakers here tonight, and I should remember the names of the members who spoke so eloquently to the changes that are being made to veterans' rights. I know the member for Vancouver Kingsway mentioned it. We have here in this bill retroactive changes to avoid legislative changes to help our veterans in long-term care have access to the reimbursements to which they are entirely entitled. We are doing a quickie on that one.

Before they can turn around, members will find that this bill also includes a number of time machines. We never had time to talk about it in this place, but Bill C-4, which is currently before the Senate, in part 4, changes privacy rights under the Elections Act. That is a doozy, by the way. We never got to debate that in this place. The bill will enter into force when the Senate is finished with it, and it will enter into force 26 years ago, because it enters into force in the year 2000. Things are being done in this place that should scandalize the members of the House, because they are profoundly anti-democratic. They represent power grabs.

Bill C-5, which was rushed through in June, of course, was the first time any prime minister in Canada has ever used the King Henry VIII clause to say that if something in the bill breaks other laws we have already passed, that is okay. I was not prepared for this to show up when I was reading this monstrous bill and to find in division 5, well over 500 pages in, that Bill C-15 put forward the notion that, unlike in Bill C-5 where the cabinet as a whole could break other laws, an individual minister, at his or her discretion, in areas within his or her jurisdiction, could exempt any entity from the application of any law except the Criminal Code.

I want to thank the hon. member for Newmarket—Aurora, who put forward the amendments in committee that would make this less bad, but in case anyone's wondering, spoiler alert, I am not going to vote for this. It is less bad, but it is still pretty awful. I cannot vote for a bill that would say that any minister can exempt an entity from acts except for a listed few, even though the ones listed are good.

On this notion of regulatory sandboxes, as far as I'm concerned and despite the fact that committee members were told in finance committee by Treasury Board officials that regulatory sandboxes are normal and routine and that we should all be used to them by now, I cannot support it. They come from the U.K., the Tory government and the Bank of England, where regulatory sandboxes were initiated in order to innovate financial instruments, services and products and were exempted from laws to be able to innovate and experiment.

I do not mind it so much, although innovation in financial instruments is what led to the collapse of the housing market in the U.S. by bundling together worthless mortgage papers and calling it a product, but it is more dangerous when they are playing with our health and environment.

We do not have any way of really regulating what is going on, even with the admirable work of the member for Newmarket—Aurora. The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway referred to it as a “backroom deal”. No doubt that is what happened. It makes this slightly less awful. It would mean that before a minister exempts an entity from the application of a law, there must be a 30-day public consultation period. Unlike the original version of this act that said that the minister will make it public as soon as it is “feasible” but with no timeline on that, thanks to amendments in committee it is now within 30 days that it must be made public. However, that does not allow me to vote for this bill.

The hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway also pointed out, and I will certainly vote for those amendments, that this bill would do away with the digital services tax. While that was not as much of a surprise, given the budget, as other things, and I think regulatory sandboxes were never foreshadowed, certainly in the election campaign, we were told it was “elbows up”. It was subsequent to that, but before the budget, that our elbows dropped when Donald Trump said that he did not like the fact that Canadians were bringing in a digital services tax.

We were doing that in concert with colleagues through the European Union. We need to get a hold of these digital giants that are ripping off our private information for their own profit. We need to have a way of holding them to account. They are eroding our democracy and attacking our public media and newspapers.

I remember a prominent Liberal and respected former minister in this place, the hon. Lloyd Axworthy, who called it “bootlicking” when Trump said that he did not like the digital services tax and the Prime Minister said that we will get rid of it really quickly. I am too nice to say that, but I can quote Lloyd Axworthy saying it.

I find it deeply worrying that we now have to pass an omnibus budget bill in quick fashion, because it has to be done by later tonight. We all know that is the plan. It is going to be whizzed through, because they whizzed through that process in the unanimous consent motion of February 13.

I find this bill deeply offensive. There would be changes to CEPA without proper analysis and study and changes to the digital services tax without us even debating in this place the fact that we are repealing a law that we passed to bring it into effect. We would lose the oversight under the Red Tape Reduction Act. One would have never expected us to bring in the right for any individual minister to exempt an entity from a law, which still remains in place in this bill but with more safeguards and somewhat more transparency.

When I consider all the things that comprise this giant, over 600-page bill, I am offended. I will vote no, and I urge my fellow members to make it less bad by supporting the amendments from the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway.

The Economy

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, the global landscape, as we know, is rapidly changing, leaving economies, businesses and workers under a cloud of uncertainty. In response, Canada's government has focused on what we can control, which is building a stronger economy to make life more affordable for all Canadians. To that end, we are securing new trade and investment partnerships abroad and building our strength here at home to create good career opportunities with higher wages for Canadians. However, we understand that many Canadians are struggling to make ends meet and need immediate support.

When we go to the grocery store, we see higher prices, and it is harder for Canadians to put food on the table for their families. With the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit, normally known as the goods and services tax, or the GST, credit, we are making groceries and other essentials more affordable. I am proud to say that the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit will provide additional support for more than 12 million Canadians, including many in my riding of Sydney—Glace Bay.

We are increasing the amount of the benefit by 25% in five years, beginning in July of 2026. On top of that, we are providing a one-time payment this spring, equivalent to a 50% increase in the 2025-26 value of the HST credit. Combined, this means that a family of four will receive over $1,800 this year and about $1,400 a year for the next four years. A single person will receive up to $950 this year and about $700 a year for the next four years.

The government is also setting aside $500 million for the strategic response fund to help businesses address the cost of supply chain disruptions without passing on the cost to Canadians at the checkout line. We will also, for the same reason, dedicate $150 million under the existing regional tariff response initiative to support investments in food security by small and medium-sized enterprises and the organizations that support them. As we know, thanks to budget 2025, we are doing much more to make life more affordable for Canadians.

Budget 2025 builds on the many actions we have already taken to support Canadian businesses at a time of significant uncertainty and affordability challenges. When we look at things such as rate reductions, which is currently before Parliament as Bill C-4 and would apply to a taxable income of up to $550,000 in 2026, that is essential. This change would ensure that 22 million Canadians would benefit from tax relief up to $420 per person, saving two-income families up to $840 this year.

We are making many initiatives happen to support Canadians. It is a tough time for Canadians, and these measures, along with other measures, focus on businesses, business support and sector support. Building Canada strong is not just a slogan. It has deep meaning in terms of building Canada and building for Canadians with Canadian workers. Together with the hub and spoke model, this is a focus on solutions over slogans.