House of Commons Hansard #65 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Closure of Algoma Steel Plant Pierre Poilievre requests an emergency debate on steelworker job losses at Algoma Steel, blaming American tariffs and the Liberal government's carbon tax. He criticizes a $400 million investment without job guarantees. 500 words.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-12—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules on a point of order concerning nine amendments adopted by committee to Bill C-12, an act relating to border security and immigration. The deputy government leader argued the amendments violated the "parent act rule." The Speaker declares eight amendments, primarily concerning the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, inadmissible, finding them outside the bill's scope, but upholds one amendment to the Oceans Act as consequential. 1600 words.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 Second reading of Bill C-15. The bill implements the 2025 budget, which opposition members criticize as leading to generational debt and a rising cost of living. They allege it contains "corruption" and "favouritism" benefiting Liberal insiders and the Prime Minister's corporate buddies, hindering job creation. Government members defend it as a "generational investment" to build a strong economy, citing increased defence spending, infrastructure, and social programs, while accusing the opposition of "character assassination" and "filibustering." 51200 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act Second reading of Bill C-241. The bill proposes a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting to enhance coordination and data sharing across Canada, addressing the increasing impacts of climate change. While supporters emphasize the need for cooperation among different levels of government and improved water management, critics argue it risks becoming another Ottawa-driven exercise in paperwork without providing real solutions or timely funding for disaster mitigation. Concerns are raised about duplication with existing services, respecting provincial jurisdiction, and the lack of concrete action or funding mechanisms to support communities. 7400 words, 1 hour.
Angelo Iacono Liberal Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development regarding the supplementary estimates (B), 2025-26.
The committee has considered votes 1b and 10b under Department of the Environment and vote 1b under Parks Canada Agency and reports the same.
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of committees of the House.
If the House gives its consent, I move that the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.
Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
Procedure and House AffairsCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Some hon. members
Nay.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions amongst the parties and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That a take-note debate on Canada's auto industry be held on Wednesday, December 3, 2025, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, and that, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House: (a) members rising to speak during the debate may indicate to the Chair that they will be dividing their time with another member; (b) the time provided for the debate be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 12 periods of 20 minutes each; and (c) no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.
Auto IndustryRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay.
It is agreed.
The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.
(Motion agreed to)
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand and present petition e-6777, created by Ms. Outwater, a resident in my neighbouring riding of Peterborough.
All 1,767 of these signatories are concerned about the current system the Liberal government has created when it comes to how safe they feel on the streets of their community. People are concerned that there are repeat offenders continuing to get out on bail so quickly and continuing to reoffend.
They would like something done about the fact that, oftentimes, when there is an intruder, the homeowner will defend themselves and then end up being charged. The petitioners would like to see some changes to that in our justice system. Therefore, I present this petition.
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition to the House that firearms owners from across Canada have brought forward. They are concerned about past legislation and new orders in council that target law-abiding firearms owners.
The petitioners say that Bill C-21 does nothing to tackle firearms violence, but rather adds red tape to law-abiding Canadians. They also describe how the bill does little to tackle the true source of violence, which is gangs and organized crime.
The petitioners are calling on the government to repeal Bill C-21 and devote greater resources to policing so that they can combat the sources of violence.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of angry parents with children at Abbotsford Traditional School, who are concerned about BC Housing's policy to establish a “safe” consumption site across from the school track.
Parents want to protect the innocence of their children. Hard drugs have no business being close to high schools, and parents are demanding that all funding to BC Housing from the federal government be eliminated until it comes to its senses and respects the innocence of children.
Alex Ruff Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of petitioners who are concerned about the persecution of the Falun Gong in China. Specifically, they are calling upon the Government of Canada to proactively deploy all possible avenues to publicly call on the Chinese regime to end its persecution of the Falun Gong in China and end transnational repression abroad; to continue to impose sanctions on and pursue accountability against Chinese Communist Party officials and proxies responsible for those human rights violations; and, finally, to take stronger measures to protect the Falun Gong community targeted by foreign repression.
Jonathan Rowe Conservative Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, NL
Mr. Speaker, I rise with a petition from Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who are deeply worried about the condition of Canada's small craft harbours throughout the province. This is vital infrastructure for our fish harvesters and coastal communities.
The petitioners point out that most harbours rely on volunteers, and that only about 700 of the 950 harbours across the country can be properly supported. Despite government promises to bring these harbours up to standard, the program is still operating on the same $90-million budget, with little visible progress. The petitioners note that stalled maintenance, aging infrastructure and limited federal investments are holding back jobs and growth, and that communication with our harbour authorities simply has not kept pace with community needs.
They are calling on the government to double small craft harbour funding, strengthen engagement with coastal communities, make permanent investments in modern infrastructure and, finally, deliver on its own 2024 harbour commitments. I am honoured to table this petition on their behalf.
Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC
Mr. Speaker, this morning, I would like to present petition e‑6768, which has been signed by over 4,000 people.
The petitioners are calling on the government to ensure proper labelling of food made from gene-edited plants and genetically modified foods. That is important. The petition also talks about genetically engineered livestock and makes the same requests in that regard.
I will read the petition:
Whereas:
Genetically engineered foods, also referred to as genetically modified foods or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are not required to be labelled in Canada and companies are not voluntarily labelling their genetically engineered food and food ingredients;
New genetic engineering techniques of gene editing, such as CRISPR, are projected to lead to the development of many new genetically engineered foods, including genetically engineered fruits and vegetables as well as genetically engineered livestock;
Many foods from gene-edited plants will not be assessed for safety by Health Canada and will not appear on Health Canada's list of approved novel foods;
Many Canadians want access to information about how their food is produced and public opinion polls have consistently found that over 75% of Canadians want mandatory labelling of genetically engineered foods;
Mandatory labelling will simplify the tracking of GMOs in supply chains for food businesses;
Mandatory labelling will provide transparency to improve public trust in Canada's food system; and
The federal government has stated its commitment to the principle of transparency.
We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Canada, call upon the House of Commons to establish mandatory labelling of all genetically engineered foods sold in Canada.
That is what these people are calling for. I think that we need to comply with their request for transparency. I thank them for preparing this petition, which I am pleased to present this morning.
Anthony Housefather Liberal Mount Royal, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would like to present petition e-6903, which has been signed by 2,275 people.
The petitioners are asking for faster processing times for humanitarian and compassionate applications. They want to see a transparent action plan to address the backlog and ensure reasonable decision timelines and they are asking the Minister of Immigration and the House to consider that.
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Mr. Speaker, this petition is, in essence, a reflection on Bill C-4.
The petitioners are calling on the government to provide tax cuts to Canadians.
I would suggest that we have things such as Bill C-4, which has tax breaks for the middle class and 22 million Canadians and a tax break for first-time homebuyers, and gets rid of the consumer carbon tax.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
[For text of questions and responses, see Written Questions website]
Closure of Algoma Steel PlantRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I wish to inform the House that I have received notice of a request for an emergency debate.
I invite the hon. Leader of the Opposition to rise and make a brief intervention.
Closure of Algoma Steel PlantRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
Battle River—Crowfoot Alberta
Conservative
Pierre Poilievre ConservativeLeader of the Opposition
Mr. Speaker, steelworkers are the backbone of our nation, and the products they make are the bones of our economy. We cannot have a modern economy without steel, and Canada's steel sector has been under attack from American tariffs and the Canadian government's taxes.
Steelworkers go to work every day, work in difficult conditions and bring home a paycheque for their families to raise their kids in the hopes that their children will have the same opportunity that they had. The member for Edmonton Griesbach could tell us all about that. His father worked at the Algoma plant in Sault Ste. Marie for 30 years, so for him, it was personal when he learned that one-third of those incredible workers would be losing their jobs.
A thousand families sat around dinner tables last night, wondering how they would pay their mortgages. Fathers had conversations with their children, saying they will not be able to register for soccer or hockey for the next season. Mothers and fathers tossed and turned in their beds, wondering what their future looked like and whether they would have to move.
This is after the Prime Minister looked them in the eyes and promised that he would protect their jobs. He said he would negotiate a win with President Trump to end the tariffs and there would be a deal by July 21. That was last summer. He missed his self-imposed deadline. He said he would be “elbows up”, and now he says, “Who cares?”
Those families care. I want them to know that we Conservatives care about them. We want to fight for their jobs every day and in every way.
We want to know, in an emergency debate, why the Prime Minister gave $400 million in tax dollars, money that came from hard-working people who are struggling to pay for their groceries and their mortgages, without getting job guarantees. It rips off both taxpayers and workers. It is another bait and switch by the Prime Minister.
On behalf of all those families, we want the answers to those questions. We want an end to the Prime Minister's Liberal industrial carbon tax on steel production, which makes it even more difficult for Canadian steelmakers to compete with their American counterparts. Trump's tariffs plus the Liberal taxes are driving jobs south of this country. That is why we, as Conservatives, are fighting back.
We want to get a fair deal, without tariffs, with the Americans. We want an end to the industrial carbon tax. We want to make sure that $400 million results in job guarantees, because that is what taxpayers paid for. However, to get any of that, we need a debate on the floor of the House of Commons to put forward the positive ideas, protect paycheques and make sure that the vital industry of steel is strong here in this country.
That is what we are fighting for. It is for the Canadian people who work hard to be able to have good jobs and buy food and affordable homes in safe neighbourhoods and a nation that puts Canada first.
Speaker's RulingRequest for Emergency DebateRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his intervention. However, I am not satisfied that this request meets the requirements of the Standing Orders at this time.
That being said, I know this is a topic of great interest to many members. I want to assure the House that I am open to reconsidering the request at a later date if the situation warrants it.
Admissibility of Committee Amendments to Bill C-12—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on November 28, 2025, by the deputy leader of the government in the House of Commons regarding amendments adopted by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-12, an act respecting certain measures relating to the security of Canada's borders and the integrity of the Canadian immigration system and respecting other related security measures. The committee's report was presented to the House earlier the same day.
In raising the point of order, the deputy House leader of the government asked the Speaker to review the content of the report, arguing that nine of the amendments included therein were inadmissible on the grounds that they violated the parent act rule and should not have been considered by the committee.
The amendments in question propose changes to the Oceans Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. They include one amendment adding new clause 24.1 (CPC-2), six amendments adding new clauses 39.1 to 39.4 (CPC-8, CPC-13, CPC-14, CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17) and two amendments adding clauses 75.1 and 75.2 (CPC-30 and CPC-33).
All nine amendments had been ruled inadmissible by the Chair of the committee, since they seek to amend sections of either the Oceans Act or the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are not amended by Bill C-12.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 771:
…an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill.
The committee chair's rulings on these amendments were challenged and overturned. The committee then debated the amendments and adopted them.
The member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière, in his intervention on the matter, argued that each amendment relates directly to Bill C-12's objectives, which he described as including strengthening public safety, reinforcing the integrity of the immigration system and improving its efficiency, transparency and accountability. He contended that the amendments are admissible on that basis and that the committee was acting within its authority when it decided to adopt them.
In his remarks, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière noted a decision by Speaker Regan that sets out key considerations related to the Parent Act rule. In a ruling on October 24, 2018, at page 22797 of the Debates, Speaker Regan stated:
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. This is especially so when the amendments are consequential to other decisions taken by a committee or by the House.
The Chair must therefore consider the scope of the bill and review the relevance of each amendment. In doing so, the Chair is bound by the House’s decision to adopt the bill at second reading, which fixes the scope of the bill and establishes certain limits on the amendments that may be proposed in committee.
The Chair has therefore carefully reviewed Bill C‑12 as adopted by the House at second reading, the amendments in question and their relationship to the relevant parent acts. The Chair will first address the amendments that concern the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, before examining the amendment relating to the Oceans Act.
The Chair notes that Bill C-12 proposes a wide range of amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act across parts 5 through 8 of the bill. In the opinion of the Chair, a close reading of the text of the bill reveals five main legislative objectives in relation to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These are as follows.
The first is expanding immigration-related information sharing across federal departments and agencies. The second is eliminating the designated countries of origin regime by repealing provisions in the act which authorize the minister to designate certain countries whose claimants would be subject to a different review process. The third is modifying the powers and obligations of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and the Immigration and Refugee Board in determining how refugee protection claims are received, processed and decided upon. The fourth is expanding the Governor in Council's ability to make orders related to suspending or terminating applications and related to cancelling, suspending or varying documents issued under the act. The fifth is creating new ineligibility rules for refugee protection claimants.
The Chair has reviewed each of the amendments in question with a view to determining whether they are within the scope of Bill C-12's legislative objectives.
CPC-8 and CPC-14 together require officers and ministers to issue warrants for the arrest or detention of a person in certain circumstances; however, Bill C-12 does not include amendments to the detention and release process and the issuance of warrants among its legislative objectives.
CPC-13 seeks to limit the time within which a judge must determine the reasonability of a certificate; however, Bill C-12 does not amend division 9 of part 1 of the act, which provides for, among other things, the issuance of certificates of inadmissibility.
CPC-15, CPC-16 and CPC-17 establish additional reporting requirements for the minister in the context of the minister's annual report to Parliament. The Chair notes that CPC-15 includes several reporting requirements, among which is a requirement related to the number and category of documents varied or cancelled. While this aspect of the amendment appears to the Chair as potentially related to Bill C-12's legislative objectives, the Chair has been unable to identify a similar relationship between the other provisions in the amendment and Bill C-12. CPC-16 and 17 would add reporting requirements related to federal benefits received by refugee claimants; however, the bill does not amend provisions related to such benefits.
CPC-30 amends the section imposing penalties related to human trafficking; however, the bill does not amend the act with respect to the enforcement of human smuggling and trafficking, nor with respect to penalties more generally.
Finally, CPC-33 amends the residency requirement for the chairperson of the Immigration and Refugee Board. While the bill does propose certain amendments to the board's exercise of its powers, it does not amend the act with respect to the composition, office and staff of the board.
In the Chair's view, while there may be certain connections between the substance of these amendments and the objectives for the reform of the refugee and immigration system debated by members at second reading and at committee, these amendments are not relevant to the bill's legislative objectives and were correctly ruled inadmissible by the chair of the committee as being beyond the bill's scope. While members may find it tempting to add additional objectives when considering a piece of legislation, these must be in keeping with the scope and the principle of the bill as approved at second reading.
The Chair will now consider the provisions of the bill related to the Oceans Act. Bill C-12 proposes to amend section 41 of the act, with the objective of expanding Coast Guard services to include activities related to security and also to allow the Governor in Council to designate any minister as the minister responsible for Coast Guard services. During its clause-by-clause study of the bill, the committee adopted an admissible amendment to section 41 of the act, CPC-3, to assign responsibility for Coast Guard services specifically to the Minister of National Defence. No one has contested the admissibility of this amendment.
The committee also adopted CPC-2, an amendment adding new clause 24.1 that amends section 40 of the act, a section which is not amended by the bill. CPC-2 removes the responsibility for Coast Guard services from a list of responsibilities of the Minister of Fisheries set out in section 40 of the act. In making this amendment, the committee was resolving an inconsistency between section 40 of the act and section 41 of the act, as amended by CPC-3, where each section would identify a different minister as responsible for Coast Guard services.
After careful review, the amendment to section 40 of the act appears to the Chair to be consequential to the committee's decision to assign responsibility for Coast Guard services to the Minister of National Defence. As a result, my conclusion is that this amendment is within the scope of the bill as adopted by the House at second reading.
Consequently, I order that the amendment adding new clause 24.1 be maintained and that the eight other amendments adding new clauses 39.1 to 39.4, 75.1 and 75.2 be declared null and void and no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering a reprint of Bill C-12 with the removal of the inadmissible amendments. This reprinted version will stand as the official version of the bill for consideration at report stage.
I thank members for their attention
The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.
John Brassard Conservative Barrie South—Innisfil, ON
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said “Who cares?” during his visit to the U.A.E. recently about the state of trade talks with the U.S., he meant it, and here is why.
No one should be naive in thinking that the Prime Minister left a $1-trillion company, making millions of dollars in both salary and deferred compensations, for some virtuous reason to make $400,000 as the Prime Minister, to negotiate a trade deal or save us from ourselves. Almost everything in the budget implementation act is set up to use the power of the Prime Minister's Office to benefit a group of well-connected Liberal insiders, lobbyists and the Prime Minister's corporate buddies.
This was a process that started in 2020, when the Prime Minister was appointed as the economic adviser to Justin Trudeau while still acting as chair of Brookfield Asset Management. Having Trudeau in power was a dream come true for the incestuous cabal of Liberal elites. While Trudeau was playing prime minister, the pieces being put into place to ensure that many if not all of the public financial instruments, green investment funds and policies the Prime Minister started pushing when he was pulling Trudeau's strings as his economic adviser aligned with Brookfield's strategy and success.
Last week we found out from Brookfield's chief operating officer that the Prime Minister stands to make millions in carried interest payments from his company's success related to climate and infrastructure schemes he set up. These funds could generate tens of millions of dollars in carried interest for the Prime Minister personally, depending on their performance over the next decade.
However, here is the problem. The Prime Minister knows what he owned before the blind trust was set up. Every time he makes a decision on infrastructure, energy or climate policy, or with tax incentives that are in the BIA, this will help Brookfield in areas where Brookfield is deeply invested. Questions should arise. Is any given policy for Canadians, for Brookfield or for the Prime Minister?
Critics will argue that they have set up a blind trust and an ethics screen, and that this is enough to ensure public confidence and trust, but Brookfield's interest from artificial intelligence, modular housing, carbon capture, nuclear and the transition model of public risk for private return he set up while advising Trudeau will make the Prime Minister millions, and he knows it.
Furthermore, the screen is administered by two political appointees of the Prime Minister. We found out last week that the Prime Minister met with Brookfield executives privately in the Prime Minister's office in October, which would cause a reasonable person to think that the screen is not being wilfully applied, given the fact that the Prime Minister is not supposed to have any interaction with Brookfield, either its people or its entities.
Who cares? We all should, because democracy depends on trust. If Canadians believe that their leaders are making decisions to enrich their companies or themselves, confidence in our institution erodes even more than it has under the Liberals. This is not about partisan politics; it is about accountability. Canadians deserve leaders who serve the public interest, not private portfolios.
My assessment of the budget is simple. For people who support expansive government involvement in every aspect of our economy; subsidies given to companies that would otherwise invest their own capital; Brookfield's deep involvement in policies shaped by its former chair, the current Prime Minister, policies that he and the company stand to gain from; bloating debt and deficits that burden our families, seniors and future generations; and a system that gives Liberal insiders and lobbyists unfettered access to the Treasury while Canada drifts closer and closer towards a kleptocracy, this is the budget—
Bill C-15 Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1Government Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.