Debates of June 1st, 2026

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I do not know which Trudeau the Conservatives are more obsessed with, Madam Speaker. Maybe it is a tie.

What is clear here is that the member opposite seemed to suggest that he supported investments in the defence industry, yet his leader stands up consistently and talks about the deficit related to the spending in our defence policy. Which is it? Is it more money into the defence industry that does not come from the government? That does not make sense, because Canadians expect us to invest in our defence. People pay taxes just so we can invest in our armed forces, which we are going to do. The Conservatives have spent weeks complaining about a deficit the vast majority of which is invested in our armed forces and to hit our NATO targets, which they have been asking us to do for 10 years. I would think the least the member could do is stand up and thank us.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that members want to debate the content of Bill C‑31, but I want to remind everyone that we are in fact debating a time allocation motion on this bill and the decision to allocate a specific amount of time for debate on it.

I have a question for the minister. Why did we have to spend more than three weeks asking officials from the Department of Finance for a technical briefing on a 300-page bill of which certain divisions, like division 17 on air passengers, have nothing to do with budgetary policy? Can the minister please explain why, for three weeks, we were unable to ask officials questions in order to do our parliamentary homework? There was radio silence.

The minister's response was essentially that we should just read the bill ourselves, since we are a bunch of lazy bums. That level of arrogance is typical of this government.

Personally, I am acting in good faith. I do read the budget document. We spend a ton of time on it. It is highly technical and legislative. We did receive a briefing from officials, but we only received it a few hours before the government imposed time allocation.

I am therefore asking the minister whether he considers it acceptable that it took three weeks before we received a response to our request for a briefing and that his government imposed time allocation right after that.

I am also asking him whether, for future bills, he thinks it would be appropriate to provide the opposition with a timely response so that it can perform its work constructively and properly debate all the legislative issues involved in bills.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would say that the answer is generally yes, but everyone has to be prepared for the briefing. All I was saying is that people can read. Honestly, three weeks to read 300 pages is not asking too much.

[Rhonda Kirkland, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am starting to understand why the Premier of Quebec called the minister a disgrace to all Quebeckers. A day after he was made the Minister of Culture, he said he was fed up with language debate. It is clear the minister is fed up with all debate, based on his answers in this session this afternoon.

The member for Red Deer asked a question about guardrails. He asked if there are “guardrails in this bill in regard to making loans, advance payments, government guarantees, loan and credit insurance and grants”. The minister said yes. Therefore, I would ask him to please list those guardrails.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I made very clear when I was appointed to this position is that I was fed up with the politicization of the language debate. It is true. The reality is that politicizing this debate makes it impossible to get to the heart of the matter to ensure that the common language in Quebec is and remains French.

As a government, we support minority languages both outside and within Quebec. We do so with a clear-eyed perspective, without seeking to gain political capital at the expense of indigenous peoples, immigrants, English-speaking minority communities, and French-speaking minority communities outside Quebec. That was the point. I think this is a very important point to make, because right now, the member is going off in all sorts of directions to raise a very ridiculous point about today's debate.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect, sometimes very smart people, like the minister, say things that are far below their level of intelligence. The minister's answer to my last question falls into that category. I will explain why.

The minister is telling us that three weeks is not much time to read 300 pages and that we were short on time. He is wondering why the government would give us a technical briefing when three weeks is not much time to read 300 pages. Now, he is rising in the House to move a motion to reduce the time allotted for debate so that we cannot debate this bill. We will have just a few hours to debate it. He thinks that three weeks is not enough time for the opposition to read the bill properly, and yet he thinks we can debate it properly in just a few hours.

I would like to know whether the minister realizes that he is contradicting himself. Does he realize that his government's decision to wait three weeks to give a technical briefing and then impose time allocation is indefensible? Is he aware of how arrogant his government is, the government on whose behalf he is speaking today in the House of Commons?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is not arrogant to point out that this is the third time he has asked me the same question. If he is interested in the bill, now is the time for him to ask me questions about it. He will also be able to ask me questions in the coming hours.

I agreed with him that, yes, as a member of Parliament—and this applies to all members—he must be able to receive a proper briefing. I also told him that he had had three weeks to read the bill, but that I would be surprised if all members had taken that much time to read it.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, when I was first elected, I could not speak one full sentence in French. I spent time learning French so that I could treat my francophone colleagues with respect.

We have pointed out that the government does not want to debate the bill. Not only does this minister not want to debate this bill, but he also does not want to get into what he calls an identity-based debate about Quebec. For that reason, Quebec's premier called him a disgrace to all Quebeckers.

Can the minister explain why, having alienated Quebec, he now wishes to alienate all Canadians by terminating debate on a 330-page bill after only a few hours?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the member opposite on the quality of her French and the efforts she has made to learn the language. I believe she is setting an example for many unilingual English speakers in this place and across Canada who are making the effort to learn French. I want to take this brief moment to congratulate her.

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

Madam Speaker, the minister is responsible for heritage in Canada, and I want to recognize that June 1 is day one of Filipino Heritage Month. Winnipeg North is the centre of the heart of the Filipino community in Canada. It does not matter where. From coast to coast to coast, we will witness all forms of celebration of Filipino heritage.

Given that the minister represents heritage, I wonder if he could provide his thoughts on how important it is to recognize Canada's diversity, from the perspective of the budget. I would ask him to share his thoughts on the importance of recognizing our diversity.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I would like to wish a great Filipino Heritage Month to everyone celebrating and to all Canadians, whether they are Filipino or not. This is a community that has grown, I think, to well over a million strong over the last few years: a million and one, if we count the member for Winnipeg North, who appears to be an honorary member of the Filipino community and certainly behaves as such. He has been a fierce defender of their rights and has magnified their struggle to be in Canada and to thrive as Canadian citizens. I wish all of those celebrating a great Filipino Heritage Month as we celebrate this month of June, recognizing their contributions to Canada, present and future.

[Tamara Jansen, Conservative, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Madam Speaker, governments that are confident in their ideas welcome debate. Governments that are uncertain of their ideas shut it down. Canada is now the only G7 country in recession. Jobs are disappearing, investment is leaving and families are falling behind, yet instead of allowing Parliament to fully examine a budget that would affect every Canadian, the Liberals are once again shutting down debate. The government tells Canadians to trust its plan. Trust is earned through openness, accountability and debate, not by cutting debate short.

Why are the Liberals so determined to prevent Parliament from giving it the scrutiny Canadians deserve?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, not that this is an example for anyone, but I would remind the Conservatives that they shut down Parliament from 2024 to 2025.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, last time I checked, I was the guy standing. Members opposite would like to talk about the current economy, but I would note that—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot is rising on a point of order.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, members cannot mislead the House. The Conservatives never shut down Parliament. We do not have the ability to shut down Parliament. The only party that shut down Parliament was the Liberal Party when it prorogued Parliament.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

That is a matter of debate.

The hon. minister can conclude his answer or we can move to another question.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to answer it. I would note for members opposite that when they are talking about one of the strongest economies in the G7, and it is a good point what they are saying, I would ask them to look at the issue they talked about for years, which is GDP per capita, and they will note that it has jumped in the last quarter.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, the media industry is going through a crisis right now. The government had introduced a levy in July but ultimately did not go forward with it. The government believed that would put it in a better position to negotiate tariffs with the Americans. That plan failed.

Later on, the economic update failed to include anything to support local and regional French-language news outlets. In my region, the Lower St. Lawrence, TVA Group has seen its staff at the station shrink from 30 to eight in the space of two years. Local and regional news coverage is being eroded, yet the latest economic update contains nothing to support these news outlets.

Can the minister tell us what he is planning to do right now? The crisis is only getting worse.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is not true.

I would encourage the member opposite to look at the journalism tax credit proposals that are going to be examined and applied in the audiovisual sector. They represent a significant investment in audiovisual newsrooms. He should just ask the news group he mentioned. They will tell him that this news has been extremely well received.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are debating the time allocation the government has given, which is basically shortening the debate on 332 pages of law. It gave us only three hours before, so for each 100 pages, we have only one hour of debate. Members can imagine the shortcoming of Canadians not being able to understand what is going on with these bills and not being able to understand the consequences of what the government is providing.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Madam Speaker, if the member opposite thought he needed more time, why would he put forward an amendment to kill it?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings at this time and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.