TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-06-01 Sitting 126 Showing 1–5 of 5

The Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 is a massive 330-page omnibus bill covering a wide range of topics from income tax measures, to tobacco and vaping products, to defence procurement. The bill includes changes to the Income Tax Act, Excise Tax Act, Bank Act, Canada Labour Code and many other acts. During debate, opposition MPs raised concerns about the size and complexity of the bill and the limited time for debate, arguing it was being rushed through without proper scrutiny. The government rejected accusations the bill was being rammed through, saying MPs had weeks to review it. Much of the debate focused on defence procurement changes, with the government saying the bill provides needed investment and the opposition arguing it adds bureaucracy. Other topics discussed included the forestry industry crisis and changes to the air passenger rights regime.

Official Hansard ↗

Marilène Gill

Bloc Québécois 12:05 p.m.

“I want the government to give money to the forestry industry. People are sad. The government should spend money to fix this.”

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 12:15 p.m.

“I don't like that the government is rushing this bill and not giving us enough time to study it. Air Canada already knew what was in the bill before we did. That's not right. The bill is very long and we need more time to do our job. The government didn't give us a briefing for three weeks and now they're limiting debate. That's very arrogant of them. I think they're abusing their power.”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 12:20 p.m.

“I want more time to debate this bill. The minister should have given us a briefing sooner. It was rude to make us wait. We aren't lazy. We need his help to understand this complex bill. His government shouldn't limit our debate time right after they finally brief us. Next time, he should help the opposition parties do our job.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois 12:25 p.m.

“You're very smart, but your answer doesn't make sense. You say three weeks isn't enough time to read a 300-page bill, but then you also try to limit the time we have to debate that same bill. You're contradicting yourself. Do you realize how arrogant this makes your government look?”

Official Hansard

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?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Bloc Québécois 12:30 p.m.

“I want the government to give more money to French-language media. They're struggling and need help now.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates