Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2026

Motions in Amendment

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise this morning to talk about the report stage of Bill C-31, part 2.

For everyone watching out there, Bill C-31, part 2, is the budget implementation act from last year. We are talking about 12 months ago when this budget was actually presented to the House. We are only now dealing with it because the Liberals continue to drag their feet. This is not a priority for them in bringing this forward.

They can sit there and heckle all they want, but if the truth be told, Bill C-31 was brought into this House six months ago and we are only getting to report stage now. The Liberals have control of the legislative agenda. If this was a priority for the government, the Liberals would not be here talking about the budget implementation act for budget 2025 when we are just about to hear about budget 2026 later this week. This is just bizarre for the financial planning for our country. The government holds it at such a low priority that we are dealing with legislation that is over 12 months old. We are at the end. We have to keep in mind that the fiscal year for the Government of Canada is April 1 to March 31. The fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, is what this budget actually deals with. We are dealing with a part of a budget that was already passed and dealt with six months ago, so it is just bizarre that here we are, more than six months after the fiscal year has ended, talking about the budget implementation act at report stage.

I am going to target most of my comments around division 16 in the budget implementation act, which establishes the Defence Investment Agency. It is completely contrary to what the Liberals are now doing through Bill C-40, which makes the Defence Investment Agency a Crown corporation.

As colleagues know, the Conservatives have always supported the Canadian Armed Forces. We have supported our sailors, our soldiers and our aviators with the equipment and support that they have needed, going back since the world wars. What we have witnessed after 11 years of these Liberals is that the Canadian Armed Forces was neglected during that entire time. The way that they have tried to pad the numbers and do creative accounting, which I will dig into as we go forward, really does talk about how the government is all about being performative.

If we look at the Defence Investment Agency, which has been operating now for over a year as a part of PSPC, it is all announcements and no deliveries. It is all flash and smoke with no actual fire. We have not seen any kinetic equipment being delivered into the hands of the Canadian Armed Forces since it stood up the Defence Investment Agency.

We do not know why the government moved from Bill C-31 and establishing the Defence Investment Agency as a stand-alone agency under Bill C-31 to where now it needs to have Bill C-40 to establish the Defence Investment Agency as a Crown corporation. What has happened in the last six months since this bill was tabled in the House in May earlier this year?

I can tell colleagues that this really does come down to Doug Guzman, who is the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, and a BFF of the Prime Minister. They both worked at Goldman Sachs. They are both investment bankers. Here is an individual who has had little to no experience in national defence or defence procurement and is now the CEO. He was frustrated having to deal with the bureaucracy and frustrated with not having the power he enjoyed in the private sector. He was not happy with the checks and balances, and how the Defence Investment Agency had to go through the Treasury Board and cabinet to get approvals for purchases. He threatened to rage-quit. All of a sudden those stories came out and all of a sudden we got a new bill before the House called Bill C-40.

I think it is important to note that clause 47 of Bill C-40 says that if Bill C-31 passes before Bill C-40 does, which is now at the defence committee, division 16 of Bill C-31 will be deleted. It will be repealed even if it is brought into force by the government through the Governor General.

If Bill C-31 and Bill C-40 pass, Bill C-40 being dealt with at committee now and having its first meeting on it on Thursday, unless the Liberals continue to slowly drag Bill C-31 through the legislative process, division 16 will be repealed. Why we are still dealing with Bill C-31 and division 16 is beyond me. I do not know why the government would not have been proactive on this and just removed division 16 from Bill C-31 on its own. It had a chance to do it at committee and now at report stage, and, of course, it has not done that.

We have one concern about Bill C-40. As I mentioned, the CEO and the Secretary of State for Defence Procurement are not happy about dealing with the checks and balances that exist within our parliamentary process. The way the government is supposed to act and protect the taxpayer to ensure that the dollars are being spent wisely is that all industry and competitors are allowed to bid on projects and to procure from all the players in Canada and around the world the equipment that we need to defend Canada and work with our allies. Bill C-40 would bring more power to a single minister responsible for the Defence Investment Agency, power that can be transferred to the CEO of the Defence Investment Agency, whom we assume would be Doug Guzman, which would increase the risk of more political interference and, because it is a Crown corporation, make it less transparent and less accountable to us as parliamentarians.

We have a fiduciary duty and responsibility to the taxpayers of Canada. Yes, we want to buy more equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. We have to as we live in a dangerous world, but we also need to ensure that we are protecting taxpayers. We have to make sure that we are getting the right equipment, and that means we have to listen to the Canadian Armed Forces. The Liberal government procured equipment that has not been in the best interests of the Canadian Armed Forces. I am talking about the Kingfisher CC-295s, which were sole-sourced by the Liberals before they had the Defence Investment Agency. Because they kind of fumbled along in the replacement of our search and rescue fixed-wing aircraft in B.C. and across the country, they ended up buying a plane through a sole-source agreement that is not fit for purpose. That plane is still not certified as operational. Not all the planes have been delivered, even though this contract goes back several years, and the Canadian Armed Forces is making do with our old equipment, including some of our old Hercules, to get the job done to protect Canadians when we have to do search and rescue operations.

The other one is the GlobalEye. The Defence Investment Agency in May of this year at CANSEC advised the Prime Minister, when he was speaking at CANSEC, to go ahead and purchase the GlobalEye without having a competition. We have three options. All three of them do not necessarily meet the operational shortfalls of the Canadian Armed Forces, but we should have run a competition to see what was in the best interest of industry, Canadian jobs and making sure we have the right platform for the Canadian Armed Forces to do the job it does. Again, there was political interference in sole-sourcing a product that is not necessarily useful to protecting Canada.

We are also seeing political interference from the government on buying F-35s. It is reviewing it and reviewing it. We just learned last week it is putting a pause on buying Black Hawk helicopters for our special operations forces. Every time it does this, it makes Canada less safe. The Liberals like to talk a good game on national defence, but at the end of the day, they have not delivered.

They have done creative accounting to come up with the numbers to meet the NATO target. Their actual expenditure is based upon the Library of Parliament. It was only at 1.05% in the last year under Justin Trudeau. When we look at the last three years of Trudeau, we see that he cut the defence operation budget by $2.7 billion and we know that the government today, despite saying it was spending more on national defence, is actually cutting the operational budget by 10%. That reduces our readiness. That equals over $2.9 billion out of the budget of the Canadian Armed Forces. That has to stop. We need to make sure we properly equip, train and increase the readiness of our forces.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure members would recognize the irony of that, coming from someone who used to be the parliamentary secretary for defence when the government spent 1% of Canada's GDP toward the Canadian Forces. Within six months, this Prime Minister and this government brought it to 2% of Canada's GDP. He can talk to members of the Canadian Forces who have received increases in pay, which were long overdue. This government has done so much more in the first 18 months than Stephen Harper ever dreamed of in the 10 years he was in government.

My question to the member is, because he is so focused on this, will he apologize to members of the CAF for what some might suggest is somewhat misleading information, when this government has provided the supports for CAF that were unheard of in the last 20 years?

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

Madam Speaker, it is rich coming from the member for Winnipeg North. He knows for a fact that he sat in this chamber when we watched the government, under Justin Trudeau, continue to claw back and not make any procurement choices for the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that the wage increase for the Canadian Armed Forces was well overdue, long overdue, because the government did nothing of the sort for the 10 years under Trudeau. I can tell members that immediately after the government gave the actual increase, it clawed it back. Guys were having to pay more for rent and had their housing allowances decreased, and because of that, their actual take-home pay was less. He should apologize for the shell game and smoke and mirrors that the government continues to play with our forces.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, first, my colleague is absolutely right. Here we are debating the spring economic statement two days before the delivery of the next budget. It is completely outrageous.

I will talk briefly about an organization in my riding, L'Arche Canada, which has a project called L'Arche Comox Valley. It is trying to get a project going so it can help people with mental barriers, and the government keeps denying any funding for it. The government comes up with obscene and absurd reasons why it cannot fund it, saying that it will not be able to fund it now because the project has started. This is going to be completely out of reach for people. These are people who absolutely need our help.

As well, the Build Canada Homes has not supported people. Nowhere in the world has the free market solved an affordable housing crisis alone. It needs non-market housing.

Does my colleague agree that people with mental barriers and disabilities need special support?

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

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. There is no question that people who are dealing with mental health issues and other disabilities deserve the support of the government. Unfortunately, what we have seen under the Liberals is that none of that has happened. He talks about the Build Canada Homes program. It has not built any homes. Housing starts in this country continue to decline, and that is making it unaffordable for young Canadians to enter the housing market.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to remind the House what exactly it was that Stephen Harper inherited when he became prime minister in 2006. I remember our troops being in Afghanistan in green combat uniforms and Iltis Jeeps. By the end of that combat mission, our troops were some of the best prepared and best equipped in the world.

The Liberals talk about the 1% of GDP, but the GDP grew so much when Stephen Harper was prime minister that actual defence spending grew by over $4 billion a year annually for our troops. This information can easily be searched. At the current rate of economic collapse in this country, 2% of the Liberals' GDP is probably going to be less than 1% of what Harper did.

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Ponoka is completely right. Not only were we growing the budget, we were growing the investments in the Canadian Armed Forces and making sure they had things like new LAVs, new tanks, new TAPVs, new Chinook helicopters, new Hercules aircraft and new C-17s. All that had been bought, and our actual increase in defence spending took us up to over 1.4% under the old system, where we only calculated defence spending and did not add in, as the Liberals have done, everything from the Canadian Coast Guard. We just saw a story in Blacklock's this week that 7,378 Coast Guard employees are now national defenders, even though none of them are paramilitary or trained in the military and have told us at committee over and over again that if they came into conflict, they would leave the scene of the event.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this week, in fact the day after tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will table the 2026-27 federal budget. I sincerely hope that the minister will heed Quebec's requests regarding important sectors like aluminum and forestry.

In Laurentides—Labelle, particularly in the northern part of the riding, the forestry sector is a major part of the economy. It is one of the three economic pillars of the Antoine-Labelle RCM. Some people in our communities are worried. I am talking specifically about wage earners who, because of the tariffs, feel that a sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads. I am also thinking about the entire business community, local merchants, and the vitality and appeal of our region. When we talk about supporting specific economic sectors, it is because they carry a significant economic weight in the region, and any hardship they face will have far-reaching repercussions throughout the broader economy.

The Minister of Finance should be sensitive to this reality, given that he himself represents a region with a strong forestry sector. However, Bill C‑31 does nothing to address forestry, despite the Bloc Québécois's offers, requests and proposals. Indeed, we made thoughtful proposals developed in consultation with key stakeholders in the sector.

A year ago, in fact, we asked a number of municipal officials to come to Ottawa, including Daniel Bourdon, reeve of the Antoine-Labelle RCM and mayor of Mont-Laurier, as well as the mayor of Ferme-Neuve. They were here to support the measures we were proposing, alongside a number of softwood lumber stakeholders, including Unifor, Rémabec and Chantiers Chibougamau. The Bloc's proposal made sense then and it still makes sense today. It would have cost the government nothing. The idea was to use the customs duties collected to help support the forestry sector. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Our proposal fell on deaf ears.

Bill C-31 contains no support measures for our small and medium-sized businesses, our industrial sectors or our communities. In recent weeks, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that Quebec is the province most affected by Donald Trump's American tariffs. I understand the concerns of my colleagues from southern Ontario who are worried that the automotive sector will be decimated by U.S. policies. I understand why people in Hamilton are worried about Stelco. However, I am equally concerned about my own region. I worry that our processing industry will go into a tailspin. I fear that well-paid workers will lose their jobs. I am afraid that Quebec's economy, an economy that is diversified, industrial, manufacturing-based and service-oriented, is not sufficiently dependent on any single industry to be deemed worth saving. That is essentially what we are experiencing. There is a desire to save one industry and ensure that everyone benefits from it. With all due respect to the government, Quebec is more complex than that. Helping Quebec means understanding it, loving it and appreciating it. That way, Quebec will be further ahead than Quebeckers could have ever dreamed. I have no doubt that I will soon be reminded that there are more than 40 MPs in this House who are here to defend Quebec's interests.

What about when it comes to the forestry sector?

What about standing up to talk about aluminum?

What about fighting for our tourism sector so that it has funding to replace its infrastructure?

Not only does Bill C‑31 ignore Quebec, but it also further increases oil industry subsidies. It now considers hydrogen production from methane to be a form of clean hydrogen, unlike Quebec City, which maintains that green hydrogen must be produced using renewable energy sources.

Several measures in Bill C‑31 open the door to more powers for the government and less transparency, such as restricting who can file a complaint with the procurement ombud and which complaints the ombud can review.

It seems that every time I rise to speak during a debate, I repeatedly ask where we are headed. It is in fact a constant pattern with the federal government. It is clearly seeking to limit transparency, dismantle safeguards, remove checks and balances, and move full steam ahead toward a specific objective while disregarding basic democratic principles. I know that talking about the procurement ombud does not make for a stirring speech. It will not bring the House to its feet, but accountability does not have to be dramatic to be essential. What we are seeing take shape in the government is deeply troubling. There is a slide toward authoritarian control, where checks and balances gradually weaken until they can be silenced altogether. It is a very subtle way of going about it. The government will never openly say that it wants to silence them. No, instead, it creates Crown corporations with mandates that raise questions. It circumvents laws and plays with words. Taken in isolation, these actions may appear technical, but when viewed as a whole, it becomes clear where the government is leading us.

Bill C‑31 adopts an excessively permissive approach to public health and pesticides. I am very concerned about these changes because they could weaken oversight of pesticides. In Europe, pesticide approvals are based on scientific study and the precautionary principle. Any risks to health or the environment must be taken seriously. The economy must serve people, not the other way around. We all know that, but the government seems to be dismissing these concerns in the name of efficiency and economic interests.

The government also wants to give the minister more discretionary powers. However, when important decisions are not subject to debate and parliamentary oversight, that is no mere administrative adjustment; it is a big step in the wrong direction. I am extremely concerned. Think about pressure from lobbyists. Think about the agricultural workers who could be exposed to dangerous pesticides. Think about the impact on people and what we want to leave to future generations.

They keep talking about efficiency, but the question remains: Who will benefit from these changes?

Our requests concerning the economic update were clear. As dictated by our guiding principles, we had to take care of our people, as should we all. I will briefly review what we requested. We proposed introducing a wage subsidy program for sectors affected by the U.S. tariffs. We proposed relaunching EI reform with a clear timetable. We have been calling for that since 2015, and we were promised it. We proposed reimbursing Quebeckers for the electoral gift, which people seem to have forgotten about, that the Liberal Party of Canada handed to people elsewhere in the country during the last election campaign under the guise of a carbon tax rebate. We proposed supporting our media through three key measures involving expenditures of $387 million over five years and generating an additional $7.2 billion in revenue over the same period. We proposed locking in a 6% health transfer escalator, which could be easily done. We proposed increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74. We want no more discrimination.

There were other proposals as well. In the end, however, the government chose not to consult us. That is politics. However, when the government ignores us, it also ignores the 1,236,349 Quebeckers who put their trust in us on April 28, 2025.

We will be there and we will stand up for our values.

[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)]

Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the member from serving on committee with her, but she said something in her speech that struck me as incorrect, which was that there is nothing in Bill C-31 for small to medium-sized businesses. That was the claim she made in the House here. I know for a fact that this is not true because, obviously, I am the parliamentary secretary, and I helped get the bill through committee.

The bill would extend the productivity superdeduction, which is a tax measure that offers business owners and shareholders the opportunity to receive immediate expensing, which is basically being able to deduct real estate assets that are purchased for the purposes of processing and manufacturing. That would allow new businesses that are in operations today to take some of the money they are putting away for taxes at the end of the year to buy a new piece of real estate for the purposes of processing and manufacturing.

Obviously, there would be significant impacts to manufacturing and processing in Quebec, in the member's province and riding. I think she would be supportive of that measure. Is she supportive of that measure?

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague because in my speech I was truly talking about small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. I am a small business owner, myself.

The measures need to be targeted and very specific to the economic sectors we want to save. When I was talking about Quebec, I was referring to Quebec's economic diversification. If there are measures for Laurentides—Labelle, we should help the forestry industry. What about countervailing duties for the industry, to provide it with the liquidity it needs to survive?

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned Crown corporations. At the Standing Committee on National Defence, every witness we met, whether military personnel or industry representatives, praised the Crown corporation model for military procurement. Major contracts have been awarded in the Mirabel riding, whether to L3Harris or other companies.

I would like to hear the member's perspective on why using a Crown corporation is the best way to provide our military with the equipment and services they need.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, let us be honest. As a member of the opposition, my question is, how do we hold a Crown corporation accountable?

When we speak with the procurement ombud, he tells us that the more Crown corporations there are, the harder it is for him to do his job. If my colleague tells me that he supports Crown corporations and that they are more effective in meeting economic needs, and if he tells me that the ombud will be able to gather and provide us with the information we need, then it is settled.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Madam Speaker, the government is incompetent at managing its affairs.

We are debating here today the second budget implementation act from last year. This means we already passed a first budget implementation act, and then a month later, the Liberals had to table a second budget implementation act, which is 352 pages long. This is another omnibus bill on top of the first one they passed, yet they still did nothing, as the member pointed out, for the forestry sector in Quebec, and they did nothing to actually help the aluminum industry in Quebec. They put forward all of this big, heavy legislation, yet they are not doing anything that is actually beneficial to this country.

I wonder what the member has to say about that.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have wondered many times whether this is wilful blindness or some form of hypnosis. In all seriousness, my job is to look at all of the potential impacts. However, every person we talk to, including the procurement ombud, tells us that the current omnibus bills, particularly Bill Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2, but also Bill C-39, represent a serious departure from democratic principles.

Yes, we need to continue to do our work because people are not aware of what is happening. I am wondering to what extent the government sees what is coming.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am too pleased to rise today to speak about air passengers' rights, because this bill constitutes a step backward.

There is a real problem, and that is the copious amount of complaints that are being filed. Air travel complaints are a problem because the regulations are not clear. Airlines have three types of responsibilities: situations within the airline's control, situations within the airline's control but required for safety, and situations outside the airline's control. It is the situations that are within the airline's control but not necessarily required for safety that are causing problems.

For example, when an evening flight is cancelled due to unscheduled maintenance and rescheduled to the next morning, is that the airline's fault or not? This is problematic, and seems to happen a lot in Rouyn-Noranda. Passengers might be wondering how a company that operates just one flight a day can fail to have another plane available. It is a fair question. Under the regulations, however, passengers are not entitled to a refund. In 99% of cases, a passenger will file a complaint. We have also seen other examples in the media. For instance, airlines have been known to cancel a flight in order to reassign a plane to another flight and then claim it was due to unscheduled maintenance. The problem is that unscheduled maintenance should be exceptional cases and only occur during checks carried out right before departure.

We do have an arbitration system. However, consumers are telling us that they do not trust the fact that an independent arbitrator will deal with their complaint. We are talking about the reforms set out in Bill C‑31. The arbitrator would not be truly independent because they would be paid by the airlines. The government will likely say that it is going to pick arbitrators it thinks are appropriate, but the bill does not clarify this. Under clause 349 of the bill, the Minister of Transport may designate a person as a person authorized to resolve specified complaints and may impose as part of the designation any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate. Therefore, if there is indeed a desire to have competent people in this respect, there is nothing in this bill to indicate that. There is no guarantee that these people will be evaluated or how they will be evaluated. The minister would simply make a decision. We know that decisions can be biased. I met with Air Canada representatives about this issue last week. I also understand their point of view. For them, having a significant backlog of complaints is harmful to their reputation. Even though Air Canada is experiencing its own issues, they also believe it is important to deal with these cases quickly with their customers.

The proposed arbitration system exists elsewhere, including in Europe. It is not a bad system. However, why did the minister not draw up a list of independent arbitrators whose qualifications could have been vetted through hearings before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities? That was a key part of the Bloc's proposal. Why not simply remove division 17 of part 4 and have the matter reviewed by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities? The minister rejected that proposal outright. Why not allow consumers to select their arbitrator from this list? At the very least, they would feel they had some agency in the process and were part of an impartial procedure. Furthermore, to ensure their independence, arbitrators should be paid by the government rather than by the airlines themselves. At the end of each year, based on the number of complaints filed against each carrier, the government could invoice the airline for reimbursement. This would create a degree of distance between the arbitrator and the airline.

This is precisely why we are proposing to remove all clauses relating to this division from the bill. It is not because arbitration is necessarily a bad idea, but because it is obviously poorly thought out.

I urge the government to revisit this division and introduce a separate bill on the subject. With buy-in from consumer advocacy groups, Air Canada, other airlines and other authorities, such a bill would ensure that we have a robust complaints mechanism that would work for everyone, including carriers and passengers.

This can happen if there is the political will to make it happen, and if that political will is brought to bear at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I would remind the House that, since April, we have been meeting in camera, bogged down in parliamentary procedure. As a new member of the committee, I am increasingly finding that its government members are completely lacking in good faith.

To understand the problem I am talking about, I would point members to an excellent editorial by Stéphanie Grammond that appeared in La Presse on October 26. The title says it all: “Bowing Down to the Airline Companies”. The author discusses the complaints system overhaul. I will read a few excerpts from the article. I could read it all, because it describes the context, which is crucial. The article starts with a fairly attention-grabbing introduction:Stephen Harper, I cast thee out! For all his Liberal credentials, it is remarkable how closely [the current Prime Minister] resembles former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper on certain issues.

Obviously, I do not disagree with that assessment. Just look at the environment, labour unions or indigenous populations.

Ms. Grammond goes on to say that travellers will be the ones paying the price.

The federal government is getting ready to transform the air passenger complaints system, which is riddled with problems. Flights cancelled or delayed, reservations over-booked, luggage lost, and the list goes on, leaving travellers on the hook when the airline refuses to compensate them. They can file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), which came into force in Canada in 2019.

Those regulations are fairly recent. They were introduced under the Liberals.

However, because these regulations are “complex and ambiguous”, by Transport Canada's own admission, they are triggering a flood of litigation. Unable to keep up with the volume of cases, the CTA is buried under a backlog of 97,000 complaints.

We can all agree that there is a problem.

As a result, customers have to wait two to three years before a decision is reached, which discourages people from asserting their rights. [Unfortunately] carriers are all too aware of that. They might be tempted to automatically reject compensation claims, especially since they do not have to pay any interest or penalties if the customer eventually wins their case before the CTA.

We can all agree on the following.

This flawed system needs to be reformed once and for all, but the solution Ottawa is proposing is not the way to go. The federal government wants to give airlines the right to choose and pay for their own private arbitrator to settle disputes with their customers. It feels like Ottawa is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Curiously, the federal government's solution is modelled after a pilot project on private arbitration that Air Canada had announced back in April.

Is this a case of insider trading? One has to wonder.

It almost seems as if the airline industry whispered instructions into Ottawa's ear. Too bad for the passengers! The Standing Senate Committee on Transport disagrees [with the government's position]. It believes that carriers should not have the right to choose the private company that handles complaints filed against them. This would raise “concerns regarding independence, impartiality and conflicts of interest”, the committee stated in a report presented in early October. There are good reasons to be concerned, based on experience in the banking sector. In the 2010s, the banks had a bone to pick with the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI). The Harper government allowed them to set up their own independent complaint-handling body. This controversial decision led to all sorts of problems. An investigation showed that the independent arbitrator was slower, less efficient, and less accessible to customers. Increasing the number of arbitrators made the system inconsistent. It scattered expertise and drove up costs. It also created confusion among consumers, who no longer knew who to turn to.

That is what we may end up repeating if we do not remove the provisions under division 17 of part 4 of the bill.

Ultimately, Ottawa reversed course in 2024 by once again centralizing complaints at the OBSI. ...Ottawa is on the wrong track with this proposal, which it deliberately buried in an omnibus bill, Bill C‑31. According to the Senate committee, which did not get the opportunity to hear from the Minister of Transport, this regrettable practice reduces parliamentary scrutiny and public debate.

On that note, I want to stress that the Bloc Québécois, with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, has put forward solutions, but those solutions have been ignored, and that is one of the major problems. Ultimately, passengers will probably be the ones who pay the price. The Bloc Québécois believes it is important to stand up for passengers.

[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)]

Madam Speaker, let me start by expressing my respect for the member. Having served on committee with him for a number of years, I can say that we have always had good debates in good faith, and today is another chance to do that.

I disagree strongly with the member's statements in the House. The government is moving forward with changes to the air passenger rights regulations for the benefit of air travel passengers and is looking to resolve the backlog of complaints, which is in the order of 96,000 or 97,000 unresolved complaints.

The minister would be held accountable for that. Essentially, the minister is seeking the authority to be accountable for resolving those complaints in short order by using alternative dispute resolution firms. The minister would consult on designating those firms, put in place regulations to regulate those firms and hold air carriers and airlines accountable for paying compensation to air passengers who have not been compensated and have been waiting a long time. That is exactly what the legislation tries to do. It would also increase monetary penalties.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's skill as a debater. I like the tone he is setting for our exchanges. He wants them to be constructive. We think that being constructive in this context means deleting division 17 of part 4 and going back to the drawing board. I would like to point out that there is an advantage involved. The minister is taking away powers from the Canadian Transportation Agency and granting them to himself, but he is then transferring them to the governor in council and, ultimately, straight to the private sector. In this context, that could create a bias.

There is also the notion of confidentiality. The mandatory confidentiality requirements regarding air travel complaints are being removed. The maximum administrative penalty payable by corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations is also being increased. Ultimately, if the balance of power is upset, it is the passenger or consumer who is likely to pay the price. It is true that the problem was examined and solutions were proposed, but they are not the right solutions. That is why the government needs to go back to the drawing board. We are offering to help.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech.

As we have seen, Bill C-31 fails to address most of the needs of Quebeckers, such as locking in a 6% health transfer escalator and enhancing old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74. What does my colleague think about that?

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île for his remarks and for his sensitivity to the issues he mentioned.

With the budget just around the corner, I have high hopes that the government will deliver solutions for Quebec. Since I was elected to Parliament, I have come to realize that solutions are far too often found for Ontario and western Canada, but never for Quebec. However, the health care crisis is becoming more acute with each passing day.

Over the coming years, I hope to see a Quebec government stand up and take on Ottawa, as we saw last week. That would get Ottawa to pay more attention to Quebec's demands. The first round is tomorrow. I am really looking forward to seeing the budget.

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

Madam Speaker, that is, quite frankly, not true. Whether it is the spring update budget or, I can anticipate, the budget coming out later this week, what we find is a budget that is fair and that addresses every region of the country, including the province of Quebec.

What we have seen are major developments, like the port of Churchill, worth well over $1 billion. We have seen a mining company, worth well over $1 billion, through the Major Projects Office. Let us think of the small businesses that will be enhanced, with 8,000-plus indirect jobs, because of the port of Montreal.

I wonder if the member would reflect on the many things the government has done. I do not have time to expand on them because of time limitations.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would be happy to raise my voice to show that I am passionate as well.

The reality is that we can make a point-by-point comparison. Forestry companies receive subsidies to operate in Kapuskasing. A project like the one in Dumont Nickel has not yet been recognized, but a comparable project in Timmins, Ontario, has. There are countless examples where Ottawa does not recognize Quebec, and that is deeply problematic.

[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)]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in today's debate on Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2.

To dispel some of the myths that have been going around the House this morning, budget implementation acts are almost always omnibus, and they are almost always followed by a second BIA. It is very common for governments to have multiple technical changes that have to be consulted on after a budget comes out and that are split between two different BIAs. It is very common. It is not a big surprise. It is not the government dragging its feet, as the Conservatives have suggested. It is quite the contrary.

As we all know, budget 2026 is only a few days away. While we all will find out the details of the next federal budget in due course, I feel very confident in saying in the House that it will build on our plan to create a stronger and more resilient Canadian economy. It is a plan that, in many ways, was first shaped by budget 2025.

In budget 2025, our government laid out a clear plan to build a stronger Canada. Since then, we have been moving very quickly to turn that plan into action. We are building the infrastructure, the homes and the industries that will grow our economy and create lasting prosperity. We can think of energy, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, AI, defence, quantum and more.

We are empowering Canadians as well with better careers and a more affordable life. We can think of cutting income tax for 22 million Canadians, cutting taxes on new home purchases, suspending the fuel excise tax, and now extending that, as well as cutting taxes on new business investment. Those are tangible examples.

We are protecting our communities, our borders and our way of life, which we value so deeply here in Canada. We can think of jail and sentencing reform, the stronger borders act, protecting victims and combatting hate legislation. All of those things have been advanced by our government over the past 18 months.

Bill C-31 builds on this momentum by introducing measures to make life more affordable and build a fairer, more integrated and more self-reliant economy, one that creates lasting value for Canadians and stays resilient to global shocks, which we know are coming up more furiously and frequently. Most importantly, it would ensure that government support reaches those who need it most.

To begin, I would like to take a moment to speak to several key measures in this important legislation that demonstrate our government's commitment to fairness, economic resilience and opportunity for Canadians at every stage of life.

Our government knows that Canada is strongest when we look after one another and ensure that everyone has a fair chance to succeed. That is why we are taking action to make everyday life more affordable. In January, the government announced the new groceries and essentials benefit to put more money back in the pockets of Canadians. The benefit is helping more than 12 million low- and modest-income Canadians afford everyday essentials. It replaced the existing GST credit while providing more generous support. First, we boosted it by 25% for five years, starting in July 2026. Then we boosted it again for one year, a one-time payment, for this year, which is equivalent to a 50% increase to the current benefit. Together, these enhancements will provide substantial support to those most affected by rising food prices and essentials.

For example, a person living alone who is eligible for the GST credit could previously receive a maximum of $543. With the June 2026 one-time payment and the 25% increase combined, that person will receive approximately $950 total, which is $400 more than they would have previously received. For a couple with two children, total support will increase from about $1,086 to $1,890, which is an $800-plus increase to that benefit and a significant support to Canadians. It is not the only thing we are doing, of course. It is one of a number of affordability measures, but it is significant support. These increases will make a meaningful difference for households facing higher costs. The benefit is also indexed to inflation, ensuring that payments rise each year with the cost of living.

We are taking these steps, because helping Canadians afford everyday essentials is the right thing to do. The groceries and essentials benefit is part of a broader package of measures to ease grocery cost pressures across Canada. Canada's first-ever national food security strategy will address food insecurity, support producers and strengthen our supply chains to help lower prices for Canadians.

This strategy is backed by $3.2 billion in investments over 10 years, and it includes a $1-billion investment in food infrastructure, including food terminals and food hubs, to help independent grocers buy and move competitively priced products more easily. This strategy also includes a $1-billion investment fund through Farm Credit Canada and a $150-million food security fund to help Canadian businesses grow, produce and process more food in Canada. A further $750 million would go to expanding year-round Canadian fruit and vegetable production in climate-controlled agriculture.

These measures would help address some of the root causes of food insecurity in our country by strengthening domestic food production and improving access to affordable, nutritious food.

Let me talk for a moment about the fact that the government is aware that millions of lower-income Canadians do not file their taxes, either because they do not have the resources to do so or because their incomes are too low to owe any taxes at all. This means that people who most need benefits often do not receive them, causing some Canadians to miss out on things like the Canada groceries and essentials benefit, the Canada child benefit or the Canada's worker benefit, along with many others they would be entitled to.

That is why Bill C-31 proposes to allow the CRA to file a tax return on behalf of certain eligible individuals with lower incomes in simple tax situations who do not owe any taxes and do not file them themselves. This measure would ensure that support reaches those who need it most. When Canadians keep more of their hard-earned money, they can benefit better, and we are able to better support their families, invest in their communities and build the future that we all want to see.

Similarly, the Government of Canada recognizes the importance of creating opportunities through education. Bill C-31 proposes to implement consequential changes to the tax rules that apply to registered education savings plans to support the implementation of automatic enrolment in the Canada learning bond. The Canada learning bond provides direct federal contributions to help children from low- and modest-income families build savings for post-secondary education, yet too many eligible families miss out, not because they choose to, but because of administrative and awareness barriers. Auto-enrolment was introduced because it would remove those barriers. By automatically enrolling eligible children, we would ensure that support reaches those it is intended to help early in life when it can make the greatest difference.

Another measure in Bill C-31, among a number of others that I could focus on, is one that I am particularly passionate about that would help our businesses across the country. It is the productivity superdeduction, which was announced in budget 2025. It is a deduction for businesses on new business investment in a number of different categories. This measure would be extended, through BIA 2, to real estate assets that are purchased for the purposes of manufacturing and processing.

From time to time in the House, we have all asked why Canada does not take some of its raw material and process it here at home. That is something we can do. We could build the capacity to do that here at home to get higher value for our industries, create more jobs and ensure that we are not shipping our raw goods and materials to other countries that process it and then ship it back to us for us to buy it at a premium. Instead, we could capture more of that value in the supply chain here in Canada if we were to develop the capacity to manufacture and process more of those goods here in Canada.

That is exactly what this measure would do. It would support businesses out there that, say, have money they are putting away for their taxes at the end of the year. With this measure, they could immediately expense a purchase of a real estate asset to expand their operations to process or manufacture more goods here in Canada. That would be significant support at a time when uncertainty is at an all-time high.

In closing, Bill C-31 reflects our government's focus on fairness, modernization and resilience. Together, these measures advance a single vision for the Canadian economy, one rooted in confidence in Canadians and the belief that generational investments today can build lasting prosperity for tomorrow.

[Carol Anstey, Conservative, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Madam Speaker, most recently, according to Statistics Canada, Newfoundland and Labrador's inflation rate was 4.7%, compared with 3.1% nationally. Fuel prices increased 78.6% in one year, and transportation costs increased by 11.6%.

I am curious. How does the member square those statistics with the Prime Minister's claim that affordability is the best that it has been in a decade?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know that members opposite every day in the House like to blame the government for inflation. Inflation is not controlled by the government. It is not controlled by the Bank of Canada. The stats will show this. We have the Governor of the Bank of Canada coming today, and he will confirm, as the Bank of Canada did in its recent monetary policy report, that inflation in Canada is being driven by oil price shocks from the Strait of Hormuz and the Iran war.

The member opposite is worried, as am I, about families who are struggling with affordability, but unlike her and her caucus, who vote against every single affordability measure, we are putting things on the table for Canadians that provide real support. The groceries and essentials benefit is just one that I mentioned. Automated tax filing is another that I mentioned, which is actually relevant for Bill C-31, but there is a whole host of other measures, such as an income tax cut, cuts on taxes on fuel, new business investment and more.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just said he is concerned about affordability and the cost of living for people. The Bloc Québécois has been talking about employment insurance reform for years, and we asked that this measure be included in the budget update. When will the government propose a reform?

Some people in my riding will still have to deal with the spring gap. Nothing has changed since the Axworthy reform. I believe these people who work in seasonal industries have the right to employment insurance that will cover their needs. By Christmas or early January, some of them will have nothing left to put on the table.

I would like to know why the government is doing absolutely nothing about this, even though it has been promising to reform EI since 2015.