Debates of June 1st, 2026

Bill C-31—Time Allocation Motion

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for this relevant question.

Overall, I think that today's debate should stick to what is in the budget.

Some highly complex discussions are certainly under way with the United States, but I think it would be irresponsible to discuss them in the House of Commons. However, I want the member to know that we are still there to defend the forestry industry in Quebec and across Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a 330-page bill that is divided into 16 divisions, plus the defence investment agency act, as the minister pointed out. It would amend things as diverse as the Bank Act, the Tax Court of Canada Act, the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the Canada Labour Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Tobacco and Vaping Products Act, and the Pest Control Products Act, a wide variety of acts that also includes the Territorial Lands Act and the Red Tape Reduction Act.

It is a bill that has had very few hours of debate. In fact, if every one of these things had been brought forward, as I think they should have been, as their own bills, we would have had more time to debate each of those bills in its presentation than we will have to debate the entire act. It really feels as if the government's failure to plan is something it is turning into an emergency for all of us. I do not think it is reasonable. I think that with bills such as Bill C-2 and Bill C-22, the rush and the sloppy drafting have put Canadians' rights at risk.

I would like to know why the member is not going to allow either legislators or the public sufficient time to really think through what would be happening in this very consequential bill.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to know why the members opposite do not want to reach our NATO spending targets, which they have been saying for years we need to reach. They have said time and time again they want to accelerate things.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

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

You have had your chance to talk. Why don't you stand up and ask a question?

Madam Speaker, if the member wants to talk, they should stand up and ask a question.

Members opposite have been saying for years that we need to accelerate investing in Canada homes, delivering a clean electricity investment tax, introducing a productivity superdeduction and accelerating the path in constructing Alto high-speed rail. Now we give them the opportunity to put this through in a budgetary implementation act that is consistent with other budget implementation acts, and they are starting to balk.

[Burton Bailey, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Madam Speaker, can the member speak to the guardrails in this bill in regard to making loans, advance payments, government guarantees, loan and credit insurance and grants? Are there any?

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

Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the bill covers a lot of ground and has been debated for only about three hours. If the member thinks that is sufficient, does he believe that the House is a debating chamber where legislators debate relevant legislation with an aim to improve it, or does he believe that the chamber is merely an audience for people to clap and cheer for those things that are put before it by the current government?

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

Madam Speaker, the members opposite have been clapping like seals for the last 10 years, so I think they have demonstrated what they believe the chamber should do. Indeed, they shut it down for an entire year, completely preventing legislation from getting through.

Again—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order. The hon. minister was trying to answer a question.

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche.

[Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, we are debating the second implementation bill of the 2025 budget, which includes an investment of more than half a billion dollars in Canadian creators and the cultural economy.

This investment demonstrates that arts and culture are a priority for us. We talk about building Canada strong, and arts and culture, along with the entire cultural sector, are a cornerstone of what building Canada strong means to us.

I want to ask the minister how the cultural community has responded to this investment and why it is important to make such an investment at this time.

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

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has presented the reality of the situation just as well as the minister responsible for this file.

I would say that, yes, cultural communities, creators and those who shape the vision of who we are as a country have welcomed this investment, especially knowing that this budget was meant to be prudent, particularly with regard to cost-cutting.

Under the Prime Minister's leadership, we are investing up to $750 million in Canadian arts and culture, because it is important, at this stage in our evolution as a country, to make significant investments, whether in CBC/Radio-Canada or in small communities like the one represented by the member that have things like theatre groups, and to ensure that the federal government is there to showcase all the talent that exists across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, Canada is the only G7 country that is in a recession. More than 112,000 Canadians have lost their job in just a few months. Food banks are reaching record levels of usage. Families are struggling to pay their mortgage, their rent and even their grocery bill.

At a time like this, Canadians would expect members of Parliament to be debating solutions. They would expect their elected representatives to be examining every line of this massive omnibus bill and asking hard questions about it. Instead, the Liberals have decided to shut down debate after only three hours of debate on billions of dollars. If the government's plan is working, why are Canadians falling behind, and if the government is so confident in its plan, why is it so afraid of letting Parliament debate it?

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

Madam Speaker, again the Conservatives' actions speak louder than their words. They would not have put forward the amendment they are proposing if they wanted to continue debate on the budget.

The Conservatives do not believe what we have to say, so let me quote Bloomberg as to what its people thought about the budget: “Canada’s government is taking aim at competition in the financial sector, pledging to tackle fees, make it easier for consumers to switch banks and reduce regulatory burdens for smaller lenders.”

The Council of Canadian Innovators said, “Today’s budget represents an important step toward building trust with Canada’s innovators and the broader business community. For the first time, we’re seeing the federal government embrace a serious conversation about economic sovereignty—and that shift in focus is both welcome and overdue.”

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

Madam Speaker, I find it interesting that the member for Madawaska—Restigouche is asking the minister how this was received by the industry, because we know that Air Canada was getting ready to implement section 17 of the bill before members of Parliament had even seen the text of the bill.

Today we are discussing democracy and time allocation. We are wondering, first of all, whether the privileges of parliamentarians have been respected. I am not saying that everything in the bill is bad. However, the bill under consideration is 300 pages long. We want to do our parliamentary work. We requested a briefing from Department of Finance officials on this bill. This is standard practice, as the minister will agree. How long did it take to get the briefing? Three weeks went by without a response. The briefing finally took place at the end of last week, while committees were in session and most of the party critics could not even attend.

I understand that some governments have used time allocation in the past. I understand that it has happened. I understand that no one has a monopoly on this. Everyone accuses others of it when they are in the opposition. I understand that.

Now we are being slapped with a time allocation motion, when we only just got a briefing after the government ignored us for three weeks. What does that say about how arrogant the Liberals have gotten since they obtained a majority?

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

Madam Speaker, I do not wish to be disrespectful towards the hon. member. I note, and we all should note, that the Bloc Québécois is offering some support for the budget.

However, what he says is a little odd. Members have had several weeks to read the bill, yet the member said they were waiting for the briefing. I realize that the briefing could have been given earlier, but even though I am sometimes surprised to see proof to the contrary, I was under the impression that MPs could read.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Madam Speaker, does the minister believe that increased bureaucracy will ensure that our brave men and women in uniform get the equipment they need faster?

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

No, Madam Speaker.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is really interesting to hear the comments that are being made in the House.

I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to talk to regional mayors in southwestern Ontario and other leaders in our community who are seized with our economic development and the things that we need to do to continue to grow our region. The one answer that we have heard is that the government is responding fast, given the challenges that we are already facing. Maybe the minister can comment on the fact that we are in a situation we have never been in before. We need to move fast, and we need to work with everyone, including Parliament of course.

Why are the Conservatives so stuck on continuing to drag on debate when people are asking us to move fast so our economy can continue to grow? The mayors of southwestern Ontario are asking for us to move with speed. Can the minister comment on that?

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservatives are the ones who shut down Parliament for well over a year, about a year ago.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order.

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

Madam Speaker, again, they want to hear answers, but all they do is heckle. They have been asking us to move faster and faster, but when it comes time to move fast, they start squealing. It makes no sense.

One of the members talked about food banks. We have an initiative to make the school food plan permanent. The Conservatives have had no comment on that. They want to put money here and there, but where is not entirely clear. However, then they stand up and complain that we should be going slower. What is it: faster or slower?

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

Madam Speaker, although we are legislators, it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to carry out our fiduciary duties and responsibilities to the taxpayers of Canada and to properly vet all of the legislation and spending of the government. This bill opens up a huge abyss of extra spending. We are not against spending on national defence. I know the minister tried to say that I am trying to stop it. I want to make sure that we are spending money wisely and respecting the Canadian taxpayer.

In this bill, which establishes the Defence Investment Agency act and makes changes to the Defence Production Act, the Liberals are adding in an exclusion that the minister can exclude companies and reduce the way companies can compete. It gives the minister an out so that he does not have to give reasons why any corporation is excluded. This is where it gets really interesting. It is giving the power to the minister, through an order in council, to “procure the incorporation of any one or more corporations for the purpose of undertaking or carrying out any acts or things” in the act. It also gives the power to the minister to “remove any members, directors or officers of a corporation”.

Would the minister agree with me that this is overreach by the government, that it stinks of far-left policies, and that it is the nationalization of some of our industries here in Canada, which we witnessed under Pierre Elliott Trudeau?