Debates of May 28th, 2026

Canada Revenue Agency Act

[Dominique O'Rourke, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss Bill S-217, an act to amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act with regard to reporting on unpaid income tax.

This bill would amend the Canada Revenue Agency Act to require the CRA to list all convictions for tax evasion, including international tax evasion, in its annual report. The bill also requires the CRA to include statistics on the tax gap in its annual report once every three years. Additionally, Bill S-217 specifies that the Minister of National Revenue is to provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with data on the tax gap.

Broadly defined, the tax gap is the difference between the taxes that would be paid if all obligations were fully met in all instances, and taxes that are actually paid and collected. It is not difficult to imagine that a lot of circumstances could produce a tax gap. That said, I should point out that the CRA is firmly committed to protecting the integrity and fairness of Canada's tax system. This includes cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion both domestically and internationally. I should also mention that CRA takes a firm stand on non-compliance.

First, I would like to point out that the CRA has a robust criminal investigations program. This program investigates major cases of tax evasion, tax fraud and other serious criminal violations of tax laws. Where appropriate, the CRA's criminal investigations program refers cases to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada for potential criminal prosecution, which is extremely serious.

The consequences for taxpayers who commit tax fraud or hide assets or money abroad are very serious. If convicted of tax evasion, these taxpayers must still pay the full amount of tax owed, plus interest and administrative penalties imposed by the CRA. Under the Income Tax Act, offenders could face a fine of up to 200% of the taxes evaded. In addition, they could also be sentenced to up to five years in prison.

It should also be noted that a person convicted of fraud under the Criminal Code is liable in Canada to a sentence of up to 14 years in prison. Fingerprinting and restrictions on international travel are also possible consequences. However, it should be noted that all convictions related to tax evasion, including those involving tax evasion abroad, are already published via enforcement notices on the Canada.ca website.

The CRA has also set up a free subscription service to raise Canadian taxpayers' awareness of CRA enforcement actions and warn them about potential fraud schemes. During the period from April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2025, the courts sentenced 49 people to prison for a total of more than 98 years. Investigations are under way, prosecutions are under way, action is being taken and people are being sentenced. That represents more than $39 million in evaded federal taxes, with a total of $24.5 million in court-imposed fines.

As of March 31, 2025, the criminal investigations program, or CIP, had 200 ongoing investigations. That is a huge number of investigations. Between April 1, 2024, and March 31, 2025, the CIP also executed 86 search warrants, a 46% increase from the previous fiscal year. The CIP's computer forensics analysts seized at least 258 devices totalling more than 119 terabytes of data.

I would now like to bring up a second point, namely the CRA's work on estimating Canada's tax gap. Since 2016, the CRA has had a dedicated team studying the tax gap, which supports the Government of Canada's commitment to encouraging an open and transparent discussion on tax non-compliance.

Estimates of Canada's tax gap, combined with other indicators relating to compliance and non-compliance, can provide valuable insights into the overall health of our tax system.

At the end of March, the CRA published Canada's second overall tax gap report for the 2014 to 2022 tax years. This edition presents the overall federal tax gap and is supported by updated estimates based on the most recent data available for the 2014 to 2022 tax years. The report provides tax gap estimates for all key components. These include personal income tax, corporate income tax, GST, HST and excise revenue. The report also includes two new subcomponents: the payment payroll gap and the excise gap on cannabis. Furthermore, it examines the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the federal tax gap, providing an overall picture. Importantly, this report also highlights how the CRA's compliance and collection activities are impacting the tax gap.

The money recovered by the CRA puts downward pressure on the federal tax gap each year. We have the numbers in front of us, and we can compare the gross and net amounts. In tax year 2022, the gross tax gap was 16% of the federal tax revenue or $59.5 billion. However, the net tax gap would have been 9.3% of the federal tax revenue or $34.7 billion, so the CRA's compliance and collection activities resulted in a potential reduction of the overall gross tax gap by 42%, or $24.8 billion.

That said, I would like to mention that the data on Canada's tax gap is also published on the Government of Canada's open data portal and is widely available. That means that this information can be accessed by the Canadian public and interested parties, such as the Parliamentary Budget Officer. Canadians can rest assured that the Government of Canada and the CRA remain committed to supporting the Parliamentary Budget Officer in carrying out her mandate. This commitment is being fulfilled with the assurance that Canadians' confidential tax information is protected in accordance with the law. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the recent appointment of Annette Ryan as the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

In conclusion, the work on the tax gap provides us with a clearer picture of the health of Canada's tax system. This work encourages an open and transparent discussion on tax non-compliance. That said, it is important to note that many factors remain beyond the control of any tax administration when estimating the tax gap. Moreover, there is an international consensus that a country's tax gap will likely never reach zero.

Furthermore, it is important to note that the tax gap is not a performance indicator for either the CRA or the government. It is a theoretical estimate of non-compliance with tax obligations over a given period, and this non-compliance can vary over time. As a result, the tax gap is primarily an important source of information to monitor what is happening in our tax system.

One thing is certain: These efforts to address the tax gap are aimed at ensuring that everyone, individuals and corporations alike, meets their tax obligations, because taxes not only fund government services and programs, but also promote economic development in Canada through investments in the many sectors of our economy.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill S-217, which was introduced by my friend and colleague in the other place Senator Percy Downe. I thank him for his perseverance in pushing this issue forward. I believe this is the third time the bill was introduced and adopted in the other place and the third time the bill has been sent to the House for consideration. I know Senator Downe has put a lot of work into this.

To be clear, we support this bill. It would, broadly, do three things. First, it would have the CRA publish a list of people who are criminally convicted for tax evasion, which I think is an important part of public disclosure and transparency. Second, it would require the CRA to estimate the tax gap between taxes owed and taxes collected. Third, it would require the CRA to provide data to the Parliamentary Budget Officer so that the Parliamentary Budget Officer can independently assess the tax gap between taxes owed and taxes collected. Those are, I think, three very good goals of the bill.

I would encourage my colleagues to support this legislation. It is important to maintain the integrity of our income tax system. This will give the institutions of state the tools they need to do that so that we can ensure lower taxes for everyone, because when we close the tax gap and reduce tax evasion, taxes can go down.

I look forward to the further debate and vote on this bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member will have the balance of his time when the chamber next considers the bill. The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

Message from the Senate

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill, with amendments to which the concurrence of this House is desired: Bill C-14, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and the National Defence Act regarding bail and sentencing. Copies of the amendments are available at the table.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect that if you canvassed the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:30 p.m. so we could begin the late show.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Indigenous Affairs

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House as the elected representative for Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies.

Members of the House are elected to represent Canadians and to advocate on their behalf. Every one of us is sent here to represent the people, to be their voice and advocate and to work on behalf of the people we represent. These are basic and essential principles of representative government that are supposed to be upheld in this place, but the Liberal government seems to have persistent challenges in fulfilling basic requirements of representative government.

On May 8, I asked if the Prime Minister would reverse government directive 14. What is directive 14? Well, it is the Liberal government's directive on civil litigation involving indigenous peoples, which instructs federal lawyers to limit their advocacy and arguments in litigation in which they are supposed to be representing the Government of Canada, which is supposed to represent the people of Canada. In other words, even if there are sound legal arguments for government lawyers to make in defending the interests of Canadian property rights, the Liberal government has instructed its lawyers to enter the ring with their hands tied behind their backs. With directive 14, the Liberal government has disabled the representatives of the representatives elected by Canadians to fight for the interests of Canadians.

The Cowichan decision stated that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles that are the primary method of private home ownership. The Liberal government's directive 14 was the central factor in the Cowichan case. When I asked on May 8 whether the Prime Minister would reverse directive 14, the Liberal Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations responded by dodging my question.

The Liberal government issued directive 14. The government lawyers stood down as directed. The B.C. Supreme Court concluded that aboriginal title can coexist with and supersede fee simple land titles. This has directly undermined the rights of all landowners in B.C. and across Canada.

The Liberal talking point and response will likely be that the Conservatives are whipping up emotions and stirring up unwarranted fear, but it is the Liberal government directive that has caused the real fear among Canadians, especially British Columbians. When a representative elected by the people stands in the House and asks if the Liberal government will discard its reckless policy that has caused so much chaos and harm, the Liberal ministers dodge the question.

Constituents have contacted me to raise their personal fears for their property rights in the fallout from Cowichan, not because someone else whipped up fear but because of their own fear. The good people of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies can count on me to raise their concerns in the House, but sadly, they cannot count on the Liberal government to provide reasonable answers. The Liberal government is not representing Canadians' interests, nor is it defending the rights of Canadians. It is refusing to answer questions raised by members of the House elected by Canadians. All of this is the opposite of how representative government should operate. Canadians deserve to know why.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting process that has led us to where we are now on this issue. I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share with the member opposite. The Conservatives have deemed this issue of such great importance that they brought forward an opposition day motion on it. There were debates for hours in the House. We had Conservative member after Conservative member stand and, I would suggest, express misinformation that feeds into what we would call “rage bait”.

I say “rage bait” because someone showed me something earlier this afternoon. The most common phrase used worldwide in 2025 was rage bait. We get a good example of that from the Conservatives on a regular basis. I even spent over 20 minutes talking about it the other day on the floor of the House of Commons. The member just spent four minutes explaining, or attempting to explain, and justify a Conservative position, but there is nothing they can say to justify it. I asked them to give me one example where treaties have led to private property being taken away. The members were challenged to do that.

The member made reference to the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations. Here is what she had to say in a response:

Mr. Speaker, the one thing that is clear is the Conservatives have not read the Musqueam agreement, the full litigation principle number 14 or the Canadian Constitution. Section 92 shows that provincial authority is private property and private property is provincial authority. The member opposite yesterday was talking about the “secret” agreement of Musqueam. Again, it is available on the website. There are sections 5.1 and 5.2 that he should read.

Instead of being fully truthful on the issue, the Conservatives have decided to use this issue to get people upset.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Perfect, love it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You might love it, but it is the reality of it and the member knows that.

Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the member to stand up and cite a specific individual who has lost their property rights as a result of the many treaties that have been put into place. I look forward to him providing a name, but we know he is not going to be able to do that. It does not prevent him from stoking the fear that treaties are taking away private property rights and I find that unfortunate.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member opposite for attempting to change the channel, but he really needs to go back to his drawing board. I was asking about the Cowichan agreement, not the Musqueam agreement that he referred to. His denial response is exactly what I predicted. He was going to try and blame Conservatives for stoking fear. It is real fear that is coming from Canadians, like homeowners in the Richmond area who do not know what the value of their home is. He asked whether we had specific cases of people who had lost their homes. They have not lost their homes, but they have lost all value in their homes. We have ranch properties around British Columbia that simply cannot find any interested buyers because of this situation that the government has created.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the point is that there are many different agreements. The Conservatives are very much aware of the issue of private property. I was quoting what the minister responded to the member the other day. That was the quote I referenced, the opposition day motion where that agreement was referenced. I posed the very same question that I posed to the member, and Conservative members could not come up with one individual case.

There are many treaties out there. We need to look at the harm that is done by the Conservatives stoking an issue that they know is not true. They have been provided assurances on the issue, whether it is from the Prime Minister, other ministers or members who participated in the debate. I find it, as I said before, unfortunate.

Democratic Institutions

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to pursue a question I initially asked on February 12 of this year, and it is one about which, regardless of party, I think most people in this House are concerned.

The question I asked related to knowing the concern we have in this place of foreign interference in elections and, particularly, the experience we have had on many issues that were brought to light by Madam Justice Hogue. I raised the issue of what would happen if there were efforts, potentially from the United States and other countries, to manipulate a potential Alberta referendum. The response I got from the hon. minister was not out of sympathy with the issue I raised. Of course, there is not a complete answer for any of us at this point.

We know that Elections Alberta would be in charge of any potential referendum. Since I asked the question on February 12, we now know that the Alberta premier has said she is going to put forward a question about a question, which is murky, confusing and opening up a can of worms. I think a lot of us are holding our breath and hoping she will not do the same thing that David Cameron did when he fatefully and idiotically appeased a small group of his own caucus by deciding to hold a referendum on the U.K. leaving the European Union, and did so absolutely confident that it could not possibly carry because the public opinion showed the vast majority of the people of England and Wales liked being part of the EU. That was before we heard names like Cambridge Analytica and found out how effectively algorithms and data mining could be used to convince people.

There is an extremely good film that explains all this in Hollywood fashion, but it is rooted in facts and very well done. It is called Brexit: The Uncivil War with Benedict Cumberbatch. It is absolutely terrifying to watch because it reminds us of what we watched in real time as Britain was divided and people believed absolute nonsense because they were convinced it was the truth.

We now have a situation where we know for a fact that David Parker, one of the leaders of the Centurion Project, is behind a major data breach. Alberta voter information was put up on public websites. Our former colleague in this place and former premier of Alberta, Jason Kenney, is very concerned, and for very good reason. This information included a lot of private information put up in public places. As I mentioned, David Parker is one of the leaders of the separatist movement in Alberta. Would he be concerned, I ask, about advice from Elections Alberta on how to conduct himself? He is not going to be concerned. He has already described Elections Alberta as an “evil” institution. This is extraordinary.

The privacy breaches that have occurred in Alberta should make everyone very concerned. We have heard from a Canadian leading expert in national security, Wesley Wark, whose name is known to all of us. From 2005 to 2009, he was a two-term adviser to the prime minister on national security. He has expressed significant concern about what could happen in an Alberta referendum and how we can ensure there is not foreign interference and also domestic interference, such as happened in Brexit.

What will the government do to be prepared and hold this country together?

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

Mr. Speaker, first off, I compliment the leader of the Green Party in terms of her concern and the way she is carrying herself on such an important issue.

I think Canadians as a whole are very much concerned. I do not think I am unique at all. I love Canada. I have always put Canada first, and I would like to think I would be there to support Canada in whatever way I can, and try to be positive and encourage all members, whether they are a member of parliament from Alberta or outside Alberta, to be, as much as possible, talking about things that are positive. There is so much positivity about our federation as one nation, historically, today and no doubt into the future. We will be able to continue to have the best quality of life, I would suggest, in the world.

In regard to the concerns the member raised, I would just repeat the one quick sentence the government House leader said at the time. He said, “foreign interference at any level and transnational repression at any level of our democracy are absolutely unacceptable.”

We went through an interesting process over the last couple of years when we had a foreign interference inquiry. We had standing committees dealing with foreign interference indirectly. We have had Canada elections going through experiences of dealing with foreign interference. The commissioner of Canada elections, from what I understand, also has some concerns.

There is a genuine feeling that we need to be supportive and very observant, watching and ensuring that there is a sense of accountability in terms of the nation's best interest. With regard to foreign interference, we have a substantial piece of legislation before PROC. I am not too sure if the member had the opportunity to present at PROC. We have brought forward a number of amendments that are going to protect not only our election period issues related to foreign interference, but now for the first time, the time in between elections. This is something the government has brought forward in Bill C-25.

There has been a lot learned by the commission and other inputs, if I can put it that way, in dealing with the issue of foreign interference. If we just go back a couple of years, we saw how foreign interference was being demonstrated during the pandemic and the protests that took place here in Ottawa and other jurisdictions. It was not just Ottawa. There were other jurisdictions where we know that there were outside contributions being made here in Canada and it raised the issue.

Whether we are talking about CSIS or about the parliamentary security standing committee we have, there are opportunities for us to have faith and confidence, number one, in the people of Alberta and, number two, in the systems that are in place to protect the integrity of the system. I, for one, would suggest that the member continue to be diligent, as I am sure the government will be.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the minute I have left, first of all, I want to thank to the hon. representative of the government here in the House. This was very helpful.

I think we need to, as Canadians, as settler culture people, understand how profoundly fortunate we are that indigenous rights and rights holders are protected under section 35 of the Constitution. With the honour of the Crown being at stake, the treaties achieved by the treaty peoples of Alberta with the Crown and the indigenous nations of Alberta with the Crown are probably our best way to hold the country together.

The federal government should be in court every step of the way, joining with the Mikisew Cree and others in ensuring an injunction against the very idea that lands that were committed to indigenous peoples before the province of Alberta existed are protected, and treaty rights protect us all and protect Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot underestimate the role of indigenous communities, the people of Alberta in this particular situation.

I truly believe that the best way we can deal with this issue is to show that co-operative, collaborative federalism works. The more we can send out that sort of a message, showing that having a united, strong country is the way we can continue, as we have done in the past, the more we can build a stronger, healthier nation. This is not to be blind, but rather to recognize that, at the end of the day, in whatever territory or province, we need to clearly demonstrate that as a united force, we are in a much better position. That is what I would encourage all members to participate in and promote.

Health

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Albertans are tired. They are tired of hearing talking points while their public health care system collapses around them.

I asked the minister whether she is deliberately allowing public health care to erode or whether she simply does not care enough to protect it. What I got in response was another vague non-answer and more platitudes about working with provincial partners. Meanwhile, in Alberta, people are dying as they wait for care. That is not figurative or rhetorical; it is literal. Emergency room doctors in my province are warning that preventable deaths are happening because emergency rooms are overcrowded, understaffed and overwhelmed.

Seventeen rural emergency rooms are closed today because there are not enough health care workers. Patients are being treated in hallways and storage closets. Nearly one in five Albertans leaves the emergency room without receiving care, because the wait times are so unbearable.

While all of this is happening, Danielle Smith is openly dismantling public health care. She passed Bill 11, introducing two-tiered health care into Alberta for the first time in Canadian history. She is allowing doctors to charge patients privately while still billing the public system. She is diverting public money and health care workers away from the public system, and the public wait-lists grow longer. This violates the spirit and the principles of the Canada Health Act, in terms of universality, accessibility and equal care based on need, not on wealth.

While I am not surprised to see this Conservative government attack health care, the silence and the complicity of the Liberal government in the face of the breaking of the Canada Health Act is shocking. We watch the Liberal government, and every single time a corporation comes knocking, it opens the doors. However, when it comes time to protect our public institutions, we hear nothing.

I am very curious about whether health care is being quietly put on the block in negotiations such as CUSMA and other trade agreements, in which corporate access and investor protections are treated as untouchable but public services are treated as bargaining chips. How far is this government willing to go to accommodate corporate interests, even if it means weakening something that Canadians fundamentally believe in and fundamentally require?

The minister says she supports the Canada Health Act, but support without enforcement is meaningless. If the federal government refuses to act while a province openly builds a two-tiered health care system, then what exactly is the Canada Health Act for? Right now, Albertans are watching the slow Americanization of our health care. People with money move to the front of the line, and everyone else waits longer. This is not Canadian health care, and Canadians know it.

The federal government cannot keep hiding behind scripted talking points. Albertans deserve answers. When will the government enforce the Canada Health Act?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will indicate to the member that the Minister of Health has had some discussions. We have been working collaboratively not only with the Province of Alberta but in fact with all provinces, territories and indigenous communities to deal with the important issue of health care.

When we think about Alberta, because the member made reference to Bill 11, the Minister of Health's counterpart in the Alberta government has received a promise from Alberta that it will keep its bill within the boundaries of the Canada Health Act.

The member made reference to a litany of problems dealing with health care that the people of Alberta are concerned about. I can assure the member that the types of issues that are there are not unique to the province of Alberta. There are other provinces, and I can talk about my home province of Manitoba, in which there are some very serious issues dealing with health care. However, much like Alberta, we have a federal government that is working collaboratively with the provinces, territories and indigenous communities.

I will give a specific example. We have given $5 billion, over the next three years, to deal with health care infrastructure. We hope that every province will take it up. That is about $215 million-plus going to the province of Manitoba in order to deal with health care capital expenses. I, for example, have made the suggestion that this is the time Manitoba should be re-establishing emergency services at the Victoria Hospital in the south end of Winnipeg and the Seven Oaks hospital in the north end. I just use that as an example.

Never before have we seen the number of dollars transferred to provinces and territories that we are seeing today under the federal government and the Prime Minister. Even at this time in our history, we have reinforced our commitment to health care. There are no federal cuts going to the health care system. We will continue to work with and encourage provinces to manage the changes that are necessary in order to have the type of health care services that Canadians want and deserve, but it means that we have to work with these other jurisdictions. We will continue to do that to manage the changes that are necessary.

Let there be no doubt that every Liberal member of Parliament understands and fully supports the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act, I would suggest, is a part of our Canadian identity. We value the system we have. We understand it. We support the Canada Health Act.

In the specific case the member raised, the Minister of Health has had dialogue, has had direct communication with her provincial counterpart and has had the assurance that the bill the member is referencing will be in complete compliance and stay within the boundaries of the Canada Health Act.

As we continue to move forward on such an important file, it is important to see the different jurisdictions working together. Let us get best practices. Let us make sure that we have the health care that Canadians want well into the future for future generations.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I feel as though that was one of the most dishonest speeches I have ever heard in this place, to be honest.

The member talks about the minister's having dialogue with her counterpart and says that they have been assured. Is this similar to when the Liberal government asked grocery stores to behave better, and they got an assurance? Is it the same thing as when the Liberal government promised to support pharmacare for all Canadians, but then did not do it; to expand mental health care for Canadians, and then did not do it; to make sure that all Canadians had access to the dental care they require, and then backed away from those promises? Is this the same Liberal government that says the Canada Health Act should be universally accessible but refuses to meet with members of the Canadian Health Coalition, who have a legal opinion that has been created and actually says that Bill 11 breaks the Canada Health Act?

It breaks the law. They should defend the law.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my previous answer, the Minister of Health of Canada has met with the counterpart and has been provided the assurances.

However, the member is full of all sorts of misinformation in terms of her response. We do have a national dental program for millions of Canadians, thousands in the member's own riding, that is there today being ensured by this Prime Minister and by this government, to continue to be there for Canadians. We do have a pharmacare program.

What the member does not realize is that health care is a joint responsibility with the provinces, which are charged with the responsibility of administering it. When we can do so, through finances such as supports for mental health, long-term care, pharmacare and dental care, the federal government has been there and will continue to be there.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn, and the House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole to study all votes under Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the main estimates, Tom Kmiec in the chair)

Department of Citizenship and Immigration—Main Estimates, 2026-27

[The Chair, Conservative, Tom Kmiec]

The House is now in committee of the whole to consider all votes under Department of Citizenship and Immigration in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.

Today's debate is a general one on all votes under the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the Bloc Québécois. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member recognized by the Chair will be allocated 15 minutes, which may be used both for debate and for posing questions. Should members wish to use this time to make a speech, it can last a maximum of 10 minutes, leaving at least five minutes for questions for the minister or the parliamentary secretary acting on behalf of the minister.

When members are recognized, they should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used. In other words, what portion will be used for speeches and what portion for questions and answers. Furthermore, members who wish to split their time with one or more members shall indicate it to the Chair.

When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the Chair will expect that the minister's or parliamentary secretary's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, provided that at least 15 seconds be allotted for each response, since this time will be counted in the time originally allotted to the member.

The period of time for the consideration of the estimates in committee of the whole this evening shall be extended beyond four hours, as needed, to include a minimum of 16 periods of 15 minutes each. I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language and behaviour.

In addition, pursuant to order made on Tuesday, May 26, no quorum calls, dilatory motions or requests for unanimous consent shall be received by the Chair.

Finally, at the conclusion of the time provided for debate, or when no member wishes to speak, whichever comes first, the committee shall rise and the House shall immediately adjourn to the next sitting day. We will now begin tonight's session.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill has the floor.