Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel
Linked statement
“I want the House to vote separately on the part of the budget bill about airline complaints. It changes transportation rules, not government spending. It does not belong in a budget bill, so we should study it and vote on it on its own.”
“Mr. Speaker, I invoke Standing Order 69.1 of the House of Commons to ask you to divide division 17, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, in Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget. As your predecessor reminded us in his ruling of January 30, 2024, the objective of Standing Order 69.1 is to enable the House to vote separately on provisions from an omnibus bill that are not closely related, either by their nature, their objective or their integration into a cohesive budgetary policy. In his ruling, the Chair also emphasized that the central criterion is the ability to identify a clear and common theme and the need to preserve members’ rights to vote separately on legislative proposals that are, in fact, separate. This is precisely the case with division 17 of Bill C-31. This division introduces substantial amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, particularly with regard to how complaints are handled in the airline industry. These are regulatory and structural measures that establish new mechanisms and fall within a distinct area of public policy. First, these provisions are not merely budget implementation measures. Second, they are not attached to a fiscal or financial measure. Third, they are not strictly required in order to implement the budget. Fourth, this measure was not even part of the budget in November 2025. Rather, it constitutes a separate legislative package that could perfectly well be the subject of a stand-alone bill. As the Speaker acknowledged in the aforementioned ruling, the mere fact that a measure appears in a budget implementation bill is not sufficient in itself to establish the required connection if that measure introduces independent and substantial changes in public policy. Furthermore, in that same ruling, the Speaker emphasized the importance of protecting members’ right to vote in an informed and separate manner on legislative matters that are not intrinsically linked. Lumping these amendments to the Canada Transportation Act together with a series of budget measures limits the House’s ability to fully review these changes and to vote on them individually. The question on which you will have to rule is this. Do the provisions of division 17 have a sufficiently close connection to the overall bill to justify a single vote? With all due respect, I would argue that that is not the case. These provisions pertain to a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that you exercise the authority granted to you under section 69.1 to order that division 17 of Bill C-31 be put to a separate vote and studied by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Thank you for your attention.”
Mr. Speaker, I invoke Standing Order 69.1 of the House of Commons to ask you to divide division 17, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, in Bill C-31, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget. As your predecessor reminded us in his ruling of January 30, 2024, the objective of Standing Order 69.1 is to enable the House to vote separately on provisions from an omnibus bill that are not closely related, either by their nature, their objective or their integration into a cohesive budgetary policy. In his ruling, the Chair also emphasized that the central criterion is the ability to identify a clear and common theme and the need to preserve members’ rights to vote separately on legislative proposals that are, in fact, separate. This is precisely the case with division 17 of Bill C-31. This division introduces substantial amendments to the Canada Transportation Act, particularly with regard to how complaints are handled in the airline industry. These are regulatory and structural measures that establish new mechanisms and fall within a distinct area of public policy. First, these provisions are not merely budget implementation measures. Second, they are not attached to a fiscal or financial measure. Third, they are not strictly required in order to implement the budget. Fourth, this measure was not even part of the budget in November 2025. Rather, it constitutes a separate legislative package that could perfectly well be the subject of a stand-alone bill. As the Speaker acknowledged in the aforementioned ruling, the mere fact that a measure appears in a budget implementation bill is not sufficient in itself to establish the required connection if that measure introduces independent and substantial changes in public policy. Furthermore, in that same ruling, the Speaker emphasized the importance of protecting members’ right to vote in an informed and separate manner on legislative matters that are not intrinsically linked. Lumping these amendments to the Canada Transportation Act together with a series of budget measures limits the House’s ability to fully review these changes and to vote on them individually. The question on which you will have to rule is this. Do the provisions of division 17 have a sufficiently close connection to the overall bill to justify a single vote? With all due respect, I would argue that that is not the case. These provisions pertain to a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget. Accordingly, I respectfully ask that you exercise the authority granted to you under section 69.1 to order that division 17 of Bill C-31 be put to a separate vote and studied by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. Thank you for your attention.
