House of Commons Hansard #69 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was meeting.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Youth Criminal Justice Act Second reading of Bill C-231. The bill amends the Youth Criminal Justice Act to allow courts to refer young people struggling with addiction to treatment programs. It aims to prioritize rehabilitation over punishment for youth facing drug-related charges, enabling judges to delay sentencing pending treatment completion. Luc Berthold advocates this approach, seeing addiction as a mental health issue to be treated early. 8000 words, 1 hour.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1 Second reading of Bill C-15. The bill implements budget provisions, drawing Conservative criticism as a "credit card budget" that increases debt and the cost of living. Conservatives also raise concerns about a provision allowing ministers to grant "regulatory exemptions" and the lack of support for small businesses. Liberals argue the budget "strikes a balance" by investing in social programs and "creating jobs", while accusing the opposition of "filibustering legislation". Bloc members question the lack of "cell coverage" investment and the absence of a "digital services tax". 15600 words, 2 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Liaison Members debate the systematic obstruction of parliamentary committees by the Liberal government, citing examples of cancelled meetings, ministerial absences, filibustering of government bills, and the failure to advance key legislation like bail reform. Liberals counter that Conservatives are also obstructing the budget implementation bill and other legislation, accusing them of political theatre and a lack of co-operation. 20300 words, 2 hours.
Liaison Members debate the Liberal government's alleged obstruction of parliamentary committees, with Conservatives citing frequent cancellation of meetings and ministers refusing to appear or provide information. Conservatives accuse the government of lacking accountability and transparency, while Liberals argue the opposition is filibustering important budget legislation. The role of committee chairs and ministerial responsibility are key points of contention. 6100 words, 45 minutes.
Steven MacKinnon LiberalMinister of Transport and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I would like to designate Tuesday, December 9, as a day for consideration of the business of supply.
The House resumed 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.
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Madam Speaker, again, I look at the implications. We have been listening to numbers get tossed around in this chamber by the opposition. They say that the budget should be $40 billion less of a deficit than it is. Where would we cut? Where would the cutting and slashing occur across government? Maybe it would be in the area of transfer payments to provinces.
A small province like Prince Edward Island, this fiscal year, will receive over $1.3 billion from Ottawa. These are funds that allow the province to ensure health care for Islanders and ensure a host of programs across the province. Imagine if that funding was cut. Let us look at a number of maybe 10% or 15%. That would have a significant impact on the ability of the government to deliver services across Prince Edward Island. That is the Conservative approach, and I experienced it before as a provincial politician years ago when the government of the day cut spending to the provinces to get its fiscal house in order. It did not work.
This is an approach that I very much support. It allows us to invest as we build the economy and grow the economy. Canada is doing well. If we look at all the turmoil that exists in the world, Canada is performing quite well. When we measure us against all the key leading indicators in the G7 countries, Canada is either at the top or very close to the top. The doom and gloom that is always put forward by the Conservative opposition simply is not valid.
We are in a position where Canada can afford to invest in itself, where Canada can invest in Canadians and where Canada can continue to support the social programs that Canadians take for granted and expect on a daily basis. Again, every time those line items come up, the Conservative members stand and vote against them. They will vote against increases in OAS. They will vote against increases in the Canada child benefit. They will vote against increases for child care and dental care, and they will continue to vote against programs and increases in the employment insurance program.
However, those key numbers in the delivery of transfers to provinces would have the most impact on all Canadians. As I pointed out, the impact on Prince Edward Island would be significant. As a small province with limited ability to generate revenue, its dependence on the Government of Canada is significant and its ability to deliver programs to Islanders depends on that. That is why I am supporting this budget, and I will be candid. I am quite proud to support the budget because the government could have taken a different approach. As I indicated, some governments may have decided to cut and slash without any regard for the impact on people's lives from day to day. However, we chose not to go that particular route.
In fact, the budget carries significant dollars for investing in infrastructure. One of the areas I have been extremely proud to have delivered on for my riding of Egmont is infrastructure. All across my riding, I can point to significant infrastructure that is building stronger communities and making them better places to live, raise a family and have jobs. This budget continues the government's investments in Canadians from coast to coast and its investments in the small communities in our ridings, particularly my riding of Egmont. Most importantly, it continues the government's investments in those social programs that Canadians depend on and Islanders depend on.
As was pointed out, it is important that this budget passes through the process so we are able to continue to deliver for Canadians on all the programs that they want from their government. With that, I am looking forward to the vote when it comes on this budget so I can show that I support the people I represent on the priority items that they cherish and want us to deliver on.
Warren Steinley Conservative Regina—Lewvan, SK
Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the 10-minute speech of my colleague from P.E.I., and he did not mention one new initiative. A whole new budget was brought in, but not one new initiative was mentioned. He mentioned child care, the lunch program, OAS and dental care, but not one new program.
I find it interesting that the government is creating a $78.5-billion deficit, which will be about $10 billion higher, but the member did not mention any new spending. Why we question the government's ability to budget is that the National Post this past weekend said that the PM's “plan to reduce civil service will cost $1.5 billion to cut payroll by just $82 million.” They are spending $1.5 billion to cut payroll by $82 million. How does that make sense?
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Madam Speaker, I am quite happy to respond to the question. It is interesting to look back and see that it has been Conservative governments that have brought Canada to the fiscal cliff. While the Conservatives articulate and pontificate on fiscal prudency, when we look at their track record in government, we see that they have brought this country to the edge of the fiscal cliff time and time again.
Yes, the current budget carries significant new investments in infrastructure, which is the very item I was speaking to as I concluded my speech. I am looking forward to delivering in my riding in those areas as well.
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague was talking about seniors earlier, but one of the Bloc Québécois's very important requests for seniors is nowhere to be found in Bill C-15. I am talking about the 10% OAS increase for seniors aged 65 to 74. As the House knows, a few years ago, we pressured the government to increase old age pensions, since seniors were losing their purchasing power. There was an increase only for seniors aged 75 and up, which created two classes of seniors.
Why is the government so determined not to increase pensions for seniors aged 65 to 74, who desperately need it?
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Madam Speaker, as I pointed out in my opening comments, philosophically there is a big difference between Conservative ideology and Liberal ideology when it comes to pensions. One of the first steps we took was to restore both the OAS and the GIS for seniors aged 65 and up. That was a significant investment. We also made two 10% increases, in OAS and GIS, for seniors. The seniors pension plan continues to be indexed to inflation and continues to rise on a yearly basis.
If I were a senior, I would prefer to have a Liberal government in Ottawa making decisions on our economic future and well-being.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Madam Speaker, my colleague is a strong advocate for P.E.I. and Atlantic Canada. When I was raising my family, I would very much have appreciated the government's programs, especially the national child care program, which is a huge support for young families.
I want to draw on the member's experience at the provincial level and ask how important it is to have a federal government that is fully engaged in redefining Canada's economy and investing in provinces, especially smaller provinces like P.E.I.
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Madam Speaker, it is extremely important for the Government of Canada to be able to give predictable financing to provinces, especially smaller provinces, so they can plan into the future. They need to have the resources to invest in their communities and to invest in people.
My colleague referenced raising a family. One item that sticks out is that when the Conservative Party was governing years ago, its support for families was $100 a month, but it also taxed it. The $100 a month received as a child benefit was taxable and had to be declared on one's income. Compare that to ours, which maxes at over $700 a month for a child at a young age and is tax-free. This shows again the difference between a Liberal government approach and a Conservative one.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie, AB
Madam Speaker, today I rise in the House of Commons to speak in opposition to Bill C-15, not because it is a Liberal budget bill but because it is a betrayal bill. The 634-page monster that the Liberals are trying to ram through in unprecedented fashion is hiding some of the most dangerous powers imaginable, powers that would let Liberal ministers pick winners and losers and exempt their corporate buddies from the laws that bind the rest of us, all while Canadian families scrape by with little more than empty promises from the Liberals, and with skyrocketing bills.
Let me paint a picture for the out-of-touch Liberal government. Right now across the country, moms and dads are staring at grocery receipts that have doubled over the past decade of Liberal inflation. That is not hyperbole; those are the facts. The Canada food price annual report that was released just last week confirmed it. Over the past 10 years of Liberal rule, food prices have surged. The price of beef is up 62% since 2019 alone, and the price of coffee has doubled over the past six years. A family of four is now shelling out over $17,500 a year just to feed itself. That is up more than$1,000 last year, and it is going to be up another $1,000 in the year to come, the report confirmed.
The cost of food has doubled in the past years, but paycheques have not, so Canadians are making sacrifices in order just to eat, and the budget has nothing for those families. Hungry Canadians are expected to fend for themselves under the Liberals. Families are left to choose between putting gas in their car and getting milk for the kids. They are skipping meals, rationing protein and watching their hard-earned paycheques evaporate into the Liberal inflation machine. One in four households is food insecure, and two million Canadians are lined up at food banks.
That is the Liberal legacy: a decade of deficits, taxes and skyrocketing industrial carbon taxes that have hammered the working class while Liberals cater to their wealthy and well-connected friends. Every year since the Liberals took office, Canadians have become poorer and poorer. First, families saw their savings dwindle. Then they gave up extras like a vacation or concert tickets. Before too long, there was no longer any money for the kids' hockey or ballet. Now, however, families cannot afford the essentials anymore, like their mortgage, their rent, heating their home, or food.
While families are tightening their belts, the Prime Minister is preoccupied with his Brookfield bondholder and banker buddies. He has inserted into the omnibus behemoth, the 634-page Bill C-15, a provision that would hand his cabinet ministers a golden key to unlock any federal law for his favourite companies or buddies, with the exception of the Criminal Code. It would not not exempt the Criminal Code, because I guess Liberals draw a line at giving a free pass for things like kidnapping, theft or murder, but everything else would be up for a “get out of jail free” card.
Exemptions from environmental protections, transportation safety rules, tax remittances and labour standards, just name it, would be for anyone they decide, and it is all justified with buzzwords like “innovation” and “competitiveness”. If they decide that someone or some company should not have to abide by the law, they would not have to.
Who would decide that if the bill is passed? It would be the Prime Minister or one of his ministers, alone in secret, based on their own fuzzy definition of what they call the public interest. There would be no parliamentary debate, no transparency and no oversight. Taxpayers would foot the bill for whatever mess they create or for whatever goes wrong. The Liberals' well-connected friends or companies would be off the hook, and it would be tough luck for average Canadians.
Let us think about it. The average Canadian entrepreneur, the small business owner, has to jump through all the hoops to get their business started or to expand their enterprise: environmental assessments, CRA audits, safety certifications, the works. However, some Bay Street giant or some buddy of the Prime Minister would just whisper in a minister's ear, and, poof, they would be exempt from taxes everybody else is expected to pay, from consultations everybody else is expected to do, from fishery quotas, from workplace safety regulations and from environmental regulations. They would be exempt, exempt, exempt.
Let me be clear: I agree with the people who legitimately say that the Liberals have made Canada uncompetitive with the rest of the world. It is true. Ask any entrepreneur these days, and they will say they agree that it is nearly impossible to keep a business alive in this country anymore. Liberals have added too much red tape, too much in taxes, too many forms, too many regulations, too many rules, too many reports and too many restrictions. That is why there has been an implosion of the small business sector across this country, with unprecedented closures and bankruptcies from coast to coast.
The solution cannot be that we give a special free pass to Liberal friends by continuing to overburden everybody else. That is truly picking winners and losers, like a Russian oligarch who has special privileges while everybody else pays the price. Canadians know that we all must be equal under the law. Cronyism is dangerous; it violates Canadian values, and it will destroy this country. The Liberals know that this is wrong, and that is why they hid the provision deep in the 634-page omnibus bill. Why did they create an omnibus bill? It is because they know that scrutiny is the enemy of corruption.
Liberals used to proudly herald that omnibus bills were a violation of democracy. They called them Trojan horses. I think members will remember those days. The Liberals promised never to use them, but here we are with a bill that would evade Parliament like a thief in the night. Division 5 of part 5 of Bill C-15 would amend the Red Tape Reduction Act to let ministers grant temporary “get out of jail free” cards for regulatory sandboxes. “Regulatory sandboxes” sounds kind of innocent, until we realize that it is a licence to print favours. Companies are going to line up to ask for them.
The Liberals talk about its being for innovation, but let us understand that what we would get if the provisions are passed are rent-seeking big players gaming the system and stifling real competition. The same judge and jury who would decide if an exemption is appropriate would also be the same minister deciding the exemption. Common sense says that if a law is bad, if it stifles development or innovation, we should repeal it for everybody. A democracy is no longer a democracy if some citizens or corporations can evade the law without parliamentary say. This is a power grab, not progress, and it stinks.
Now let us talk about the man at the top, the Prime Minister. The golden boy of global finance is now supposed to be Canada's champion, but here is the kicker. He still has skin in the game with Brookfield Asset Management: share options, deferred units and potentially tens of millions of dollars in carried interest from funds he set up, with payments that will mature in 2032 and 2034, maybe even long after he is out of office. He chaired the board and launched its green transition funds, and this is where Brookfield will win big and Carney will cash in.
Bill C-15 Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1Government Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
The hon. member knows we cannot use current members' names in the chamber.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie, AB
Madam Speaker, you are right.
The Prime Minister will cash in.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member is continuing to make false and defamatory statements against an identifiable member.
Bill C-15 Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1Government Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
That is a matter for debate, and I am not going to rule on that.
The hon. member for Grande Prairie.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie, AB
Madam Speaker, it is not just me who is calling out this bill for what it is. Democracy Watch called it a “direct and significant financial conflict of interest”.
Bill C-15 Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1Government Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
I am sorry. We are way over time.
Questions and comments, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I found that very distasteful. I listened to what the member said. Quite frankly, he wants to feed into some sort of anger and generate anger.
There is no corruption. There is a lot of transparency. There is a whole lot of accountability. Maybe Conservative Party members need to look in the mirror because, if they really and truly believe half of what they say, this bill would have passed to a committee stage, where it could have been broken down and where it would have numerous standing committees dealing with it. There is nothing being hidden here, other than a Conservative agenda that is purely self-interested. They make character assassinations and allegations they cannot support.
It is disgusting, and the member should be ashamed of himself.
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie, AB
Madam Speaker, when the Liberals send in the member for Winnipeg North to yell, scream and claim he is hard done by, that is when we know we are hovering over the target.
I have met with families that can no longer afford to pay for the essentials. Heartbreakingly, it is a larger number than ever, and the hon. member will know these same stories. I can say that what families also see is a free pass given again and again, under the Liberals, to their corporate friends, and a massive bail—
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie, AB
Madam Speaker, the hon. member said, “Prove it.” He is heckling. I can tell him to look at the Stellantis contract. Was there a protection for Canadians as the Liberals dished out billions of dollars to their corporate friends? Absolutely not. Look at the Algoma deal. There were 1,000 layoffs this past week, and hundreds of millions of dollars handed over to the company with no guarantee for the 1,000 people who lost their jobs.
What we see under the Liberal Party again—
Bill C-15 Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 1Government Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
Costas Menegakis Conservative Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON
Madam Speaker, it is a little rich to hear Liberal colleagues in this chamber talk about accountability and transparency when they are presenting a budget implementation bill for a budget that was supposed to begin on April 1 of this year. The better part of eight months has already transpired. Now, they want us to vote on a budget after they have already spent eight months' worth of the money.
Does the member think it is normal for Parliament or any organization to budget after it has spent the money?
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague points out, exactly, the hypocrisy of the party that claims to believe in transparency. I remember a time when the members talked about sunlight being the best disinfectant, yet what we are seeing is a government clouded by more secrecy than we have ever seen with any government before.
They are not trying to rectify this as they are being called out for being secretive. They are included in this very bill we are debating before the House right now. Division 5 of part 5 clearly articulates the ability of ministers to, in the darkness of night, sign provisions to give out exemptions from federal law to their buddies. This is not democratic, and there will be no oversight for these provisions. There will be no accountability. It will be done. Canadians will have to pay for it.
Mario Beaulieu Bloc La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the fact that Bill C-15 will make the media crisis worse. A few months ago, the government was supposed to impose a 3% tax on foreign digital platforms. That would have generated billions of dollars in tax revenue that could have been used to help private media outlets, which are really struggling right now. Instead, the Prime Minister wanted to pander to Trump and did not impose this tax. This is a simple matter of tax fairness. American digital platforms do not have to pay taxes, but Quebec and Canadian platforms do.
What does my colleague think about that?
Chris Warkentin Conservative Grande Prairie, AB
Madam Speaker, my friend articulated the Prime Minister's failure to get a deal with the Americans. Obviously, the Prime Minister made a promise to get a trade deal with the Americans by July. He has failed to do that. He has done a whole bunch of things to try to now get that deal, but he continues to fail after having promised Canadians he would get it done.
When it comes to the media, one of the greatest injustices to Canadian democracy is not allowing the media to see what these ministers might sign off on. If they employ—