“I want to change this bill by removing four sections from it.”

“moved: Motion No. 2 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 282. Motion No. 3 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 283. Motion No. 4 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 284. Motion No. 5 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 285.”

“I want to change this bill by removing two of its parts.”

“moved: Motion No. 6 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 339. Motion No. 7 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 340.”

“I want to change this bill by removing several sections from it.”

“moved: Motion No. 8 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 341. Motion No. 9 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 342. Motion No. 10 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 343. Motion No. 11 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 344. Motion No. 12 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 345. Motion No. 13 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 346. Motion No. 14 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 347. Motion No. 15 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 348. Motion No. 16 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 349. Motion No. 17 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 350. Motion No. 18 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 351. Motion No. 19 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 352. Motion No. 20 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 353. Motion No. 21 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 353.1. Motion No. 22 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 354. Motion No. 23 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 355. Motion No. 24 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 356. Motion No. 25 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 357. Motion No. 26 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 358. Motion No. 27 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 359. Motion No. 28 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 360. Motion No. 29 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 361. Motion No. 30 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 362. Motion No. 31 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 363. Motion No. 32 That Bill C-31 be amended by deleting Clause 364.”

“I do not want this budget bill to pass. It does nothing to help Quebec's forestry and aluminum industries, even though American tariffs hit our province the hardest. It also gives more subsidies to oil companies, weakens pesticide rules, and limits oversight of government contracts.”

“Madam Speaker, this week, in fact the day after tomorrow, the Minister of Finance will table the 2026-27 federal budget. I sincerely hope that the minister will heed Quebec’s requests regarding important sectors like aluminum and forestry. In Laurentides—Labelle, particularly in the northern part of the riding, the forestry sector is a major part of the economy. It is one of the three economic pillars of the Antoine-Labelle RCM. Some people in our communities are worried. I am talking specifically about wage earners who, because of the tariffs, feel that a sword of Damocles is hanging over their heads. I am also thinking about the entire business community, local merchants, and the vitality and appeal of our region. When we talk about supporting specific economic sectors, it is because they carry a significant economic weight in the region, and any hardship they face will have far-reaching repercussions throughout the broader economy. The Minister of Finance should be sensitive to this reality, given that he himself represents a region with a strong forestry sector. However, Bill C‑31 does nothing to address forestry, despite the Bloc Québécois’s offers, requests and proposals. Indeed, we made thoughtful proposals developed in consultation with key stakeholders in the sector. A year ago, in fact, we asked a number of municipal officials to come to Ottawa, including Daniel Bourdon, reeve of the Antoine-Labelle RCM and mayor of Mont-Laurier, as well as the mayor of Ferme-Neuve. They were here to support the measures we were proposing, alongside a number of softwood lumber stakeholders, including Unifor, Rémabec and Chantiers Chibougamau. The Bloc’s proposal made sense then and it still makes sense today. It would have cost the government nothing. The idea was to use the customs duties collected to help support the forestry sector. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Our proposal fell on deaf ears. Bill C-31 contains no support measures for our small and medium-sized businesses, our industrial sectors or our communities. In recent weeks, the Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that Quebec is the province most affected by Donald Trump’s American tariffs. I understand the concerns of my colleagues from southern Ontario who are worried that the automotive sector will be decimated by U.S. policies. I understand why people in Hamilton are worried about Stelco. However, I am equally concerned about my own region. I worry that our processing industry will go into a tailspin. I fear that well-paid workers will lose their jobs. I am afraid that Quebec’s economy, an economy that is diversified, industrial, manufacturing-based and service-oriented, is not sufficiently dependent on any single industry to be deemed worth saving. That is essentially what we are experiencing. There is a desire to save one industry and ensure that everyone benefits from it. With all due respect to the government, Quebec is more complex than that. Helping Quebec means understanding it, loving it and appreciating it. That way, Quebec will be further ahead than Quebeckers could have ever dreamed. I have no doubt that I will soon be reminded that there are more than 40 MPs in this House who are here to defend Quebec’s interests. What about when it comes to the forestry sector? What about standing up to talk about aluminum? What about fighting for our tourism sector so that it has funding to replace its infrastructure? Not only does Bill C‑31 ignore Quebec, but it also further increases oil industry subsidies. It now considers hydrogen production from methane to be a form of clean hydrogen, unlike Quebec City, which maintains that green hydrogen must be produced using renewable energy sources. Several measures in Bill C‑31 open the door to more powers for the government and less transparency, such as restricting who can file a complaint with the procurement ombud and which complaints the ombud can review. It seems that every time I rise to speak during a debate, I repeatedly ask where we are headed. It is in fact a constant pattern with the federal government. It is clearly seeking to limit transparency, dismantle safeguards, remove checks and balances, and move full steam ahead toward a specific objective while disregarding basic democratic principles. I know that talking about the procurement ombud does not make for a stirring speech. It will not bring the House to its feet, but accountability does not have to be dramatic to be essential. What we are seeing take shape in the government is deeply troubling. There is a slide toward authoritarian control, where checks and balances gradually weaken until they can be silenced altogether. It is a very subtle way of going about it. The government will never openly say that it wants to silence them. No, instead, it creates Crown corporations with mandates that raise questions. It circumvents laws and plays with words. Taken in isolation, these actions may appear technical, but when viewed as a whole, it becomes clear where the government is leading us. Bill C‑31 adopts an excessively permissive approach to public health and pesticides. I am very concerned about these changes because they could weaken oversight of pesticides. In Europe, pesticide approvals are based on scientific study and the precautionary principle. Any risks to health or the environment must be taken seriously. The economy must serve people, not the other way around. We all know that, but the government seems to be dismissing these concerns in the name of efficiency and economic interests. The government also wants to give the minister more discretionary powers. However, when important decisions are not subject to debate and parliamentary oversight, that is no mere administrative adjustment; it is a big step in the wrong direction. I am extremely concerned. Think about pressure from lobbyists. Think about the agricultural workers who could be exposed to dangerous pesticides. Think about the impact on people and what we want to leave to future generations. They keep talking about efficiency, but the question remains: Who will benefit from these changes? Our requests concerning the economic update were clear. As dictated by our guiding principles, we had to take care of our people, as should we all. I will briefly review what we requested. We proposed introducing a wage subsidy program for sectors affected by the U.S. tariffs. We proposed relaunching EI reform with a clear timetable. We have been calling for that since 2015, and we were promised it. We proposed reimbursing Quebeckers for the electoral gift, which people seem to have forgotten about, that the Liberal Party of Canada handed to people elsewhere in the country during the last election campaign under the guise of a carbon tax rebate. We proposed supporting our media through three key measures involving expenditures of $387 million over five years and generating an additional $7.2 billion in revenue over the same period. We proposed locking in a 6% health transfer escalator, which could be easily done. We proposed increasing old age security benefits for seniors aged 65 to 74. We want no more discrimination. There were other proposals as well. In the end, however, the government chose not to consult us. That is politics. However, when the government ignores us, it also ignores the 1,236,349 Quebeckers who put their trust in us on April 28, 2025. We will be there and we will stand up for our values.”

“The government needs to target help to specific industries, like forestry in my riding. The forestry industry needs relief from duties so it has the cash it needs to survive.”

“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague because in my speech I was truly talking about small and medium-sized enterprises, SMEs. I am a small business owner, myself. The measures need to be targeted and very specific to the economic sectors we want to save. When I was talking about Quebec, I was referring to Quebec’s economic diversification. If there are measures for Laurentides—Labelle, we should help the forestry industry. What about countervailing duties for the industry, to provide it with the liquidity it needs to survive?”

“It is very hard to hold Crown corporations accountable. The procurement ombud says having more of them makes his job harder. I want to know how we can oversee them properly if the government keeps using them.”

“Madam Speaker, let us be honest. As a member of the opposition, my question is, how do we hold a Crown corporation accountable? When we speak with the procurement ombud, he tells us that the more Crown corporations there are, the harder it is for him to do his job. If my colleague tells me that he supports Crown corporations and that they are more effective in meeting economic needs, and if he tells me that the ombud will be able to gather and provide us with the information we need, then it is settled.”

“I am worried about this big budget bill. Experts tell us that putting so many things into one bill hurts our democracy. The public does not know what is in it, and we need to look at its effects much more carefully.”

“Madam Speaker, I have wondered many times whether this is wilful blindness or some form of hypnosis. In all seriousness, my job is to look at all of the potential impacts. However, every person we talk to, including the procurement ombud, tells us that the current omnibus bills, particularly Bill Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2, but also Bill C-39, represent a serious departure from democratic principles. Yes, we need to continue to do our work because people are not aware of what is happening. I am wondering to what extent the government sees what is coming.”

“I want the government to remove the air passenger complaint rules from this bill and write a separate bill instead. The plan lets airlines pick and pay the people who judge passenger complaints. Those judges will not be independent, and passengers will suffer.”

“Madam Speaker, I cannot say I am too pleased to rise today to speak about air passengers’ rights, because this bill constitutes a step backward. There is a real problem, and that is the copious amount of complaints that are being filed. Air travel complaints are a problem because the regulations are not clear. Airlines have three types of responsibilities: situations within the airline’s control, situations within the airline’s control but required for safety, and situations outside the airline’s control. It is the situations that are within the airline’s control but not necessarily required for safety that are causing problems. For example, when an evening flight is cancelled due to unscheduled maintenance and rescheduled to the next morning, is that the airline’s fault or not? This is problematic, and seems to happen a lot in Rouyn-Noranda. Passengers might be wondering how a company that operates just one flight a day can fail to have another plane available. It is a fair question. Under the regulations, however, passengers are not entitled to a refund. In 99% of cases, a passenger will file a complaint. We have also seen other examples in the media. For instance, airlines have been known to cancel a flight in order to reassign a plane to another flight and then claim it was due to unscheduled maintenance. The problem is that unscheduled maintenance should be exceptional cases and only occur during checks carried out right before departure. We do have an arbitration system. However, consumers are telling us that they do not trust the fact that an independent arbitrator will deal with their complaint. We are talking about the reforms set out in Bill C‑31. The arbitrator would not be truly independent because they would be paid by the airlines. The government will likely say that it is going to pick arbitrators it thinks are appropriate, but the bill does not clarify this. Under clause 349 of the bill, the Minister of Transport may designate a person as a person authorized to resolve specified complaints and may impose as part of the designation any conditions that the Minister considers appropriate. Therefore, if there is indeed a desire to have competent people in this respect, there is nothing in this bill to indicate that. There is no guarantee that these people will be evaluated or how they will be evaluated. The minister would simply make a decision. We know that decisions can be biased. I met with Air Canada representatives about this issue last week. I also understand their point of view. For them, having a significant backlog of complaints is harmful to their reputation. Even though Air Canada is experiencing its own issues, they also believe it is important to deal with these cases quickly with their customers. The proposed arbitration system exists elsewhere, including in Europe. It is not a bad system. However, why did the minister not draw up a list of independent arbitrators whose qualifications could have been vetted through hearings before the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities? That was a key part of the Bloc’s proposal. Why not simply remove division 17 of part 4 and have the matter reviewed by the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities? The minister rejected that proposal outright. Why not allow consumers to select their arbitrator from this list? At the very least, they would feel they had some agency in the process and were part of an impartial procedure. Furthermore, to ensure their independence, arbitrators should be paid by the government rather than by the airlines themselves. At the end of each year, based on the number of complaints filed against each carrier, the government could invoice the airline for reimbursement. This would create a degree of distance between the arbitrator and the airline. This is precisely why we are proposing to remove all clauses relating to this division from the bill. It is not because arbitration is necessarily a bad idea, but because it is obviously poorly thought out. I urge the government to revisit this division and introduce a separate bill on the subject. With buy-in from consumer advocacy groups, Air Canada, other airlines and other authorities, such a bill would ensure that we have a robust complaints mechanism that would work for everyone, including carriers and passengers. This can happen if there is the political will to make it happen, and if that political will is brought to bear at the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities. I would remind the House that, since April, we have been meeting in camera, bogged down in parliamentary procedure. As a new member of the committee, I am increasingly finding that its government members are completely lacking in good faith. To understand the problem I am talking about, I would point members to an excellent editorial by Stéphanie Grammond that appeared in La Presse on October 26. The title says it all: “Bowing Down to the Airline Companies”. The author discusses the complaints system overhaul. I will read a few excerpts from the article. I could read it all, because it describes the context, which is crucial. The article starts with a fairly attention-grabbing introduction:Stephen Harper, I cast thee out! For all his Liberal credentials, it is remarkable how closely [the current Prime Minister] resembles former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper on certain issues. Obviously, I do not disagree with that assessment. Just look at the environment, labour unions or indigenous populations. Ms. Grammond goes on to say that travellers will be the ones paying the price. The federal government is getting ready to transform the air passenger complaints system, which is riddled with problems. Flights cancelled or delayed, reservations over-booked, luggage lost, and the list goes on, leaving travellers on the hook when the airline refuses to compensate them. They can file a complaint with the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) under the Air Passenger Protection Regulations (APPR), which came into force in Canada in 2019. Those regulations are fairly recent. They were introduced under the Liberals. However, because these regulations are “complex and ambiguous”, by Transport Canada’s own admission, they are triggering a flood of litigation. Unable to keep up with the volume of cases, the CTA is buried under a backlog of 97,000 complaints. We can all agree that there is a problem. As a result, customers have to wait two to three years before a decision is reached, which discourages people from asserting their rights. [Unfortunately] carriers are all too aware of that. They might be tempted to automatically reject compensation claims, especially since they do not have to pay any interest or penalties if the customer eventually wins their case before the CTA. We can all agree on the following. This flawed system needs to be reformed once and for all, but the solution Ottawa is proposing is not the way to go. The federal government wants to give airlines the right to choose and pay for their own private arbitrator to settle disputes with their customers. It feels like Ottawa is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Curiously, the federal government’s solution is modelled after a pilot project on private arbitration that Air Canada had announced back in April. Is this a case of insider trading? One has to wonder. It almost seems as if the airline industry whispered instructions into Ottawa’s ear. Too bad for the passengers! The Standing Senate Committee on Transport disagrees [with the government’s position]. It believes that carriers should not have the right to choose the private company that handles complaints filed against them. This would raise “concerns regarding independence, impartiality and conflicts of interest”, the committee stated in a report presented in early October. There are good reasons to be concerned, based on experience in the banking sector. In the 2010s, the banks had a bone to pick with the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments (OBSI). The Harper government allowed them to set up their own independent complaint-handling body. This controversial decision led to all sorts of problems. An investigation showed that the independent arbitrator was slower, less efficient, and less accessible to customers. Increasing the number of arbitrators made the system inconsistent. It scattered expertise and drove up costs. It also created confusion among consumers, who no longer knew who to turn to. That is what we may end up repeating if we do not remove the provisions under division 17 of part 4 of the bill. Ultimately, Ottawa reversed course in 2024 by once again centralizing complaints at the OBSI. ...Ottawa is on the wrong track with this proposal, which it deliberately buried in an omnibus bill, Bill C‑31. According to the Senate committee, which did not get the opportunity to hear from the Minister of Transport, this regrettable practice reduces parliamentary scrutiny and public debate. On that note, I want to stress that the Bloc Québécois, with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, has put forward solutions, but those solutions have been ignored, and that is one of the major problems. Ultimately, passengers will probably be the ones who pay the price. The Bloc Québécois believes it is important to stand up for passengers.”

“I want the government to remove the airline section from this budget bill and start over. It gives the minister and the private sector too much control over airline complaints instead of an independent agency. Passengers will be the ones who suffer, and my party is ready to help fix it.”

“Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague’s skill as a debater. I like the tone he is setting for our exchanges. He wants them to be constructive. We think that being constructive in this context means deleting division 17 of part 4 and going back to the drawing board. I would like to point out that there is an advantage involved. The minister is taking away powers from the Canadian Transportation Agency and granting them to himself, but he is then transferring them to the governor in council and, ultimately, straight to the private sector. In this context, that could create a bias. There is also the notion of confidentiality. The mandatory confidentiality requirements regarding air travel complaints are being removed. The maximum administrative penalty payable by corporations for certain violations of the Canada Transportation Act or its regulations is also being increased. Ultimately, if the balance of power is upset, it is the passenger or consumer who is likely to pay the price. It is true that the problem was examined and solutions were proposed, but they are not the right solutions. That is why the government needs to go back to the drawing board. We are offering to help.”