Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
“The section on airline rules belongs in this budget bill. It connects directly to goals we announced in the budget, like helping air passengers and lowering travel costs. We should vote on the whole bill together instead of splitting it up.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mirabel on May 25, 2026, on the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-31, the second budget 2025 implementation act. The member is of the view that division 17 of Bill C-31, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, should be separated out for a distinct vote at the second and third reading stages. Standing Order 69.1(1) states: In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. The matter in question specifically concerns paragraph 2 of Standing Order 69.1, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills: The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation. The government’s objective in division 17 of Bill C-31 is to clear the backlog of air travel complaints by engaging a neutral third-party dispute resolution organization and to enhance both the transparency of the complaints process and the enforcement of passenger rights regulations. I am certain that all members will agree that ensuring a timely resolution of air passenger complaints will better support our tourism industry and address travel costs. The hon. member for Mirabel has argued that division 17 should be separated out for the purpose of voting as the provisions are “within a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget.” The member’s first two arguments run counter to the objectives of Standing Order 69.1(2), which protects the various targeted or broad measures included in budget documents from being separated from the budget implementation bill. The question at hand is the linkage between division 17 and budget 2025. In his ruling of November 6, 2018, Speaker Regan noted the complexity in addressing what is not always explicit. He stated: ...establishing such a link is not always obvious.... Sometimes commitments are very specific and targeted, while other times the language may be vaguer. A generally stated policy intention may translate into a series of detailed and technical legislative amendments. Accordingly, a provision announced in a few sentences may require pages of legislative changes to implement. Page 100 of the 2025 budget document announced that the government was taking action to catalyze investment in our airports and ports so that we could encourage more tourism in Canada and bring down travel costs for Canadians. Further, page 218 of the budget document notes a review of the administration monetary penalties and fines for violations of certain legislation or regulations. This included those that address air passenger rights. In line with this commitment, the amendment to the Canada Transportation Act increases the maximum administrative penalty payable to corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations. The precise details of the proposal were subsequently announced in the 2026 spring economic update document. In conclusion, I submit that the broad policy objectives were announced in the 2025 budget, as provided for under Standing Order 69.1. Lastly, in response to the member for Mirabel’s intervention, I would like to clarify that Standing Order 69.1 does not contemplate the division of a bill for the purpose of a committee referral. This would be a separate and distinct question for the House to consider. I thank hon. members for their attention in regard to this particular matter.”
Mr. Speaker, I am rising to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Mirabel on May 25, 2026, on the application of Standing Order 69.1 to Bill C-31, the second budget 2025 implementation act. The member is of the view that division 17 of Bill C-31, which amends the Canada Transportation Act, should be separated out for a distinct vote at the second and third reading stages. Standing Order 69.1(1) states: In the case where a government bill seeks to repeal, amend or enact more than one act, and where there is not a common element connecting the various provisions or where unrelated matters are linked, the Speaker shall have the power to divide the questions, for the purposes of voting, on the motion for second reading and reference to a committee and the motion for third reading and passage of the bill. The Speaker shall have the power to combine clauses of the bill thematically and to put the aforementioned questions on each of these groups of clauses separately, provided that there will be a single debate at each stage. The matter in question specifically concerns paragraph 2 of Standing Order 69.1, which makes an exception for budget implementation bills: The present standing order shall not apply if the bill has as its main purpose the implementation of a budget and contains only provisions that were announced in the budget presentation or in the documents tabled during the budget presentation. The government’s objective in division 17 of Bill C-31 is to clear the backlog of air travel complaints by engaging a neutral third-party dispute resolution organization and to enhance both the transparency of the complaints process and the enforcement of passenger rights regulations. I am certain that all members will agree that ensuring a timely resolution of air passenger complaints will better support our tourism industry and address travel costs. The hon. member for Mirabel has argued that division 17 should be separated out for the purpose of voting as the provisions are “within a distinct area of public policy, introduce substantive and independent changes, and are not essential to the implementation of the budget.” The member’s first two arguments run counter to the objectives of Standing Order 69.1(2), which protects the various targeted or broad measures included in budget documents from being separated from the budget implementation bill. The question at hand is the linkage between division 17 and budget 2025. In his ruling of November 6, 2018, Speaker Regan noted the complexity in addressing what is not always explicit. He stated: ...establishing such a link is not always obvious.... Sometimes commitments are very specific and targeted, while other times the language may be vaguer. A generally stated policy intention may translate into a series of detailed and technical legislative amendments. Accordingly, a provision announced in a few sentences may require pages of legislative changes to implement. Page 100 of the 2025 budget document announced that the government was taking action to catalyze investment in our airports and ports so that we could encourage more tourism in Canada and bring down travel costs for Canadians. Further, page 218 of the budget document notes a review of the administration monetary penalties and fines for violations of certain legislation or regulations. This included those that address air passenger rights. In line with this commitment, the amendment to the Canada Transportation Act increases the maximum administrative penalty payable to corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations. The precise details of the proposal were subsequently announced in the 2026 spring economic update document. In conclusion, I submit that the broad policy objectives were announced in the 2025 budget, as provided for under Standing Order 69.1. Lastly, in response to the member for Mirabel’s intervention, I would like to clarify that Standing Order 69.1 does not contemplate the division of a bill for the purpose of a committee referral. This would be a separate and distinct question for the House to consider. I thank hon. members for their attention in regard to this particular matter.