House of Commons Hansard #161 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.
Bill C-41—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that Bill C-41’s provisions on medical assistance in dying share a common element, so the bill will receive one second-reading vote rather than separate votes under Standing Order 69.1. 500 words.
Alleged Mis-characterization of Members' Remarks —Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that allegations about remarks made in debate are a point of order, not privilege, and finds the Halifax member’s criticism of an opposition position did not breach House rules. 500 words.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 Report stage of Bill C-31. The bill implements measures from the 2025 budget, including expanded benefits and automatic tax filing for eligible low-income Canadians, business investment incentives, and changes to defence procurement, air passenger complaints, housing finance and pesticide reviews. Government members say it supports affordability and economic resilience; opposition members raise concerns about delayed passage, fiscal management, expanded ministerial powers and insufficient transparency and oversight. 50000 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act Report stage of Bill C-235. The bill allows judges to extend parole ineligibility from 25 to 40 years in narrowly defined cases involving the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of the same victim, with reasons and appeal rights. Supporters say it can reduce repeated trauma for victims’ families; the Bloc raises constitutional concerns based on Supreme Court precedent. The House passes the bill at third reading. 5600 words, 45 minutes.
Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with DisabilitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 13th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, entitled “Housing Starts in Canada”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the following two reports of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
I table the 14th report, entitled “Public Accounts of Canada 2023”, and the 15th report, entitled “Housing in First Nations Communities”.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to each of these reports.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to table two petitions.
The first petition was initiated by members of the group Canada-Philippines Solidarity for Human Rights, who have brought to my attention many concerns.
Canada signed the Canada-Philippines status of visiting forces agreement and subsequently committed to over $60 million in security and development assistance to the Government of the Philippines. Canada has policies and commitments that uphold the protection of human rights, gender equality, transparency and accountability, including the voices at risk guidelines and the feminist international assistance policy. By entering into the status of visiting forces agreement, the Government of Canada risks binding our country's reputation to a military establishment accused of corruption and systemic human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings of journalists, union members and indigenous peoples, which violates the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.
As of November 2025, the Philippines holds 696 prisoners of conscience, who are subjected to human rights violations and inhumane prison conditions. Continued Canadian support of and co-operation with the Government of the Philippines contributes to more human rights violations, which undermines Canada's stated commitments to peace, democracy and the protection of human rights worldwide.
The petitioners therefore call on the government to conduct a transparent public review of the SOVFA's human rights, corruption and governance implications; suspend or reject the agreement, as it cannot guarantee accountability, civilian oversight and compliance with Canada's human rights obligations; call for the immediate release of prisoners of conscience in the Philippines and urge the Philippine government to end the criminalization of human rights defenders; and finally, reaffirm Canada's independent commitment to peace, human rights and democracy by engaging with peoples and civil society organizations in the Philippines, not through military pacts.
Human RightsPetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I want to remind all members who are rising to table a petition that they must summarize the petition rather than read it.
The hon. member may continue.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, the second petition was initiated by a Vancouver East constituent. They have gathered signatures to raise concerns about cows and their calves that continue to be routinely separated shortly after the calves' birth, often enduring extreme emotional and psychological stress. They note that many Canadians are unaware of this practice and would become concerned about the welfare impacts on these cows and calves if informed and would support regulatory protections accordingly.
The current dairy cattle code of practice permits the separation of cows and calves shortly after birth without requiring consideration of the resulting emotional and psychological distress. Amending the current dairy cattle code of practice with respect to the separation of cows and calves, to extend this to a mandatory six-month bonding period where the cow and her calf are not separated, would better align Canadian dairy practices with public expectations for animal welfare.
As such, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Agriculture—
Animal WelfarePetitionsRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
Sometimes it is hard to know if a member is giving a summary of a petition or reading it. In this case, I suspect the member may be reading it.
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Mr. Speaker, I summarized it. The petition is actually much longer. I have gone into the central points, so I am going to wrap it up here.
The petitioners call on the Government of Canada, through the Minister of Agriculture, to direct and support the amendment of the dairy cattle code of practice to prohibit the separation of cows from their calves less than six months after birth and to enforce compliance with this standard.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise and present a petition I had intended to introduce during the last week of October, which was international Disarmament Week. The petitioners in this case, many of whom are from Saanich—Gulf Islands but not exclusively, are calling on the Government of Canada to note that the doomsday clock has now moved closer to midnight than at any time since it was established 78 years ago by the atomic scientists who started it in 1947.
The petitioners note that we are now less engaged in talks toward nuclear disarmament than at any point since Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan put us on the path, through various treaties, toward real nuclear disarmament as a plan we were working on. The petitioners note that at this point, the all-party recommendation of 2018 for the Government of Canada to play a leadership role in disarmament seems to have fallen off the radar. They call on the Government of Canada to make nuclear disarmament a key element of our foreign policy and national defence priority and to assume a leadership role in NATO and globally. They call on Canada to at least participate as an observer in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
I will close there, noting that the matter is increasingly urgent.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to table e-petition 7556. The petitioners highlight that since early 2023, armed conflict in the Amhara region of Ethiopia has involved Ethiopian government forces carrying out indiscriminate violence and gender-based sexual violence against civilian populations and infrastructure, including through the use of aerial strikes, leaving more than 4.4 million children out of school and hundreds of thousands displaced.
The petitioners also highlight that the Ethiopian government has carried out the arbitrary detention and torture of Amhara journalists, civilian society leaders, members of Parliament and opposition figures. They highlight that the incumbent Prosperity Party administration won 90% of federal parliamentary seats in the June 2026 general election despite ongoing armed conflicts, mass civilian displacement, suppression of civilian society and opposition, and the exclusion of major ethnic communities, making conditions for a free and inclusive vote impossible.
The petitioners note that Canada provides over $147 million in development assistance to Ethiopia and maintains significant diplomatic, commercial and humanitarian interests in the country and the Horn of Africa. They are calling on the government to consider the application of the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act to oppose targeted sanctions on individuals credibly identified as responsible for grave human rights violations in Ethiopia. They demand an immediate ceasefire in the Amhara region and the unconditional release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience held by the Ethiopian government.
Lastly, the petitioners call on the Government of Ethiopia for strengthened transparency around the June 2026 general election results toward an inclusive democratic process.
Mel Arnold Conservative Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition on behalf of 38 residents of Kamloops. The petitioners are Canadians who are concerned about the changing climate and the results of the droughts, wildfires and floods caused by a warming planet. They call on the Government of Canada, for the love of our children and grandchildren, to honour and ensure Canada's 2030 and 2035 emissions targets and to strengthen the policies that make them achievable.
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition from Canadians who are concerned about the increasing number of fires involving lithium-ion batteries. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to take national action on lithium-ion battery fire risks, including a national incident reporting system, firefighter safety research, strong safety standards and training, and investments in protective equipment and fire suppression technologies. Battery safety is public safety.
Wade Chang Liberal Burnaby Central, BC
Mr. Speaker, I also rise to present a petition concerning airport rescue. When an aircraft emergency happens, every second counts. The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to strengthen airport firefighting standards by ensuring adequate staffing, faster response times, better passenger rescue capabilities, and the public reporting of the differences between Canadian and international standards. Passenger safety must always come first.
Scott Anderson Conservative Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition highlighting the public concern over the handling of, oversight of and justification for the mass killing of potentially healthy animals. Canadians expect transparency, accountability and humane treatment of animals in all government actions.
Patrick Weiler Liberal West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present e-petition 7510, initiated by Lori Guetre of British Columbia and supported by 681 Canadians.
The petitioners emphasize that Canadians deserve to know the climate impact of products they buy. While internationally recognized standards already allow producers to measure product carbon footprints, that information remains largely invisible to consumers in Canada. Standardizing labelling would help Canadians make informed choices, reward producers who reduce emissions and encourage greater transparency across the marketplace.
The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to develop and implement mandatory, standardized and comparable carbon footprint labels for consumer products sold in Canada, so that Canadians can make informed choices, lower emissions producers are recognized and rewarded, and Canada can help accelerate global emissions reductions on a meaningful scale.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
Bill C-41—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's RulingPoints of OrderRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on October 28 by the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South concerning the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-41, an act to amend the Criminal Code and an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying) and to make related amendments to other acts.
In his intervention, the member noted that, in his view, Bill C-41 proposes two separate fundamental changes: to stop the expansion of medical assistance in dying to people whose sole condition is a mental illness, and to allow advance requests for medical assistance in dying. The member argued that these two principles are sufficiently distinct to warrant separate votes, pursuant to Standing Order 69.1.
While acknowledging that both matters concern medical assistance in dying, the member also asked the Chair to consider the exceptional significance of the bill, drawing on the approach the Chair has sometimes taken in selecting report stage motions on matters of conscience, including on earlier legislation on medical assistance in dying.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons argued in response that medical assistance in dying is the bill's single issue and common element, and that the bill contains no provisions dealing with unrelated topics. The parliamentary secretary further pointed to clause 5 of the bill, where the concepts of advance requests and the prohibition on medical assistance in dying for reasons of mental illness are intertwined, as an example of the connection between the two measures. The parliamentary secretary added that other options remain available to the member to express his views on the measures in the bill.
Standing Order 69.1 gives the Speaker the power to divide the question on a bill that seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting all the various provisions. Despite the suggestion that the exceptional significance of the bill's subject matter should be taken into account, the Chair must remain guided by the wording of the Standing Order and focused on whether matters in the bill are so unrelated as to warrant separate decisions of the House.
The Chair has examined Bill C-41 in detail. Notwithstanding a series of related amendments to other acts, the bill proposes amendments only to the Criminal Code. While the bill may address more than one issue, medical assistance in dying is the subject that ties all of its provisions together and constitutes their common element. In the view of the Chair, the bill does not link unrelated matters and therefore does not meet the threshold for dividing the question under Standing Order 69.1. Accordingly, there will be only one vote at second reading.
At the same time, the Chair accepts that members may have strongly held and differing points of view on the various measures that make up a single piece of legislation. The Chair wishes to remind members that the legislative process offers them other opportunities to express those views, including through debate in the House, motions of instruction, amendments at committee stage, and report stage motions.
I thank all members for their attention.
Alleged Mis-characterization of Members' Remarks —Speaker's RulingPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on October 21 by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands concerning the alleged mis-characterization of members' remarks.
In raising her question of privilege, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands said that, on October 7, the member for Halifax had imputed improper motives to her and other members by accusing them of engaging in a disinformation campaign about Bill C-39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. In her view, these comments were a way of indirectly accusing other members of lying, they were therefore an attack on members' honesty and integrity, and they amounted to a breach of her parliamentary privileges. She asked the Chair to rule that the remarks were unparliamentary and to direct that they be withdrawn. The member for Edmonton Strathcona made the same request on October 22.
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said that same day that the comments of the member for Halifax were not directed at any member in particular.
The Chair would like to begin by clarifying that this matter is not a question of privilege but rather a point of order. By this, I mean that when a member raises concerns that a standing order may have been contravened, or that certain actions or remarks may have offended the standards of order and decorum of the House, the matter should be raised with the Chair as a point of order. Indeed, in presenting her complaint, the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands specifically referred to Standing Order 18, thereby underscoring that her concern was founded primarily on an alleged breach of the rules, practices or procedures of the House, rather than on a violation of her parliamentary privileges or those of the House.
That said, the Chair takes any allegation of an attack on members' integrity very seriously. As section 13.29 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, states:
Remarks which question a member's integrity, honesty or character are not in order. A member will be requested to withdraw offensive remarks, allegations or accusations of impropriety directed towards another member.
Having reviewed the speech given by the member for Halifax on October 7, the Chair finds that the language used that day was not contrary to the Standing Orders.
Expressing different points of view or criticizing an opposition position, particularly when the comments are not specifically directed at or made against a member, is not a violation of our rules or a question of privilege. However, the line separating what is acceptable from what is not can sometimes be quite fine. The Chair would therefore encourage members to stay well away from any language that their colleagues might interpret differently. Vigorous debate and disagreement are possible while maintaining a respectful and measured tone.
I thank members for their attention.
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.
Bill C-31 Speaker's RulingBudget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2Government Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
There are 32 motions in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-31. Motions Nos. 1 to 32 will be grouped for debate and voted upon according to the voting pattern available at the table.
I will now put Motions Nos. 1 to 32 to the House.
Bill C-31 Motions in AmendmentBudget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2Government Orders
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
moved:
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 51.
Bill C-31 Motions in AmendmentBudget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2Government Orders
Bloc
Marie-Hélène Gaudreau Bloc Laurentides—Labelle, QC
moved:
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 282.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 283.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 284.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 285.
Bill C-31 Motions in AmendmentBudget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2Government Orders
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
moved:
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 339.
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 340.
Bill C-31 Motions in AmendmentBudget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2Government Orders
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
moved:
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 341.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 342.
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 343.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 344.
Motion No. 12
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 345.
Motion No. 13
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 346.
Motion No. 14
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 347.
Motion No. 15
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 348.
Motion No. 16
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 349.
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 350.
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 351.
Motion No. 19
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 352.
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 353.
Motion No. 21
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 353.1.
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 354.
Motion No. 23
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 355.
Motion No. 24
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 356.
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 357.
Motion No. 26
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 358.
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 359.
Motion No. 28
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 360.
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 361.
Motion No. 30
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 362.
Motion No. 31
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 363.
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 364.