Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

Bill C-31, Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 · Second reading · now at report stage in the House Where it stands

What Bill C-31 would do

This budget implementation bill would change federal tax laws by delivering automatic benefits to lower-income individuals and adjusting business, excise, and international minimum tax rules. It would also ban most non-compete clauses under the Canada Labour Code and establish the Defence Investment Agency for military procurement. Additionally, the bill would transfer authority over air travel complaints to the Minister of Transport and make various other administrative changes across government.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

16 statements

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“Conservatives created the Red Seal program to recognize job training across all provinces. We want to expand it to health care workers so immigrant doctors and nurses can work in our clinics instead of driving taxis.”
  • Speech on a bill

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this speech addressed the bill under debate and what it would change.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member opposite asked about the Red Seal program, which, I would note, was brought in by a Conservative prime minister, John Diefenbaker, who brought the provinces together to recognize credentials across Canada, which is, of course, something that the Liberal government is currently having some trouble with around being able to ship wine across provincial borders. Frankly, we had proposed expanding the Red Seal program to include a blue seal program so we could get medical personnel and health care workers out of taxis and into positions where they could serve Canadians. I would say that, of course, we support the expansion of the Red Seal program to also include a blue seal program.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Our budget funds training for up to 100,000 skilled trades workers. I want the member to say if she will vote for the budget to support this program.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is important for us to recognize that within the budget, we actually have an allocation to support Canada’s Red Seal program. We are talking about anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 new Red Seal workers and skilled jobs, good quality jobs. The Conservative Party has not been clear on whether or not they will even support it. They appear to be in opposition even to that measure. I am wondering if the member can be precise and indicate that she will support that program by supporting the budget.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“I support the skilled trades program, but it is buried in a huge bill. The government is shutting down debate after only three and a half hours. Sloppy bills can hurt Canadians' rights, and we have to vote on the whole bill at once. This bill also fails to help other foreign professionals work in Canada.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, of course, we support the Red Seal program. The issue is that it is one thing buried in a 330‑page bill that we have only had three and a half hours to debate, and which this government has just tried to shut down further debate on. The challenge is that we have already seen bills come through with sloppy drafting that infringe on the rights of Canadians. Unfortunately, we have to take the bill as a whole. I would also note that while the bill has provisions for a Red Seal program, it is not expanded to a blue seal program that would allow professionals to get into positions where they could practise their professions in Canada.

Pat Kelly, Calgary Crowfoot

Conservative
“I want to give the member the rest of the time to finish what she was saying.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, if there is only a minute left, I wanted the member to have the time, if she has something further to add to the previous intervention or anything that was missed so far.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“We need more time to debate this 330-page bill. Three and a half hours is not enough while Canadians are struggling.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the big challenge is that we have had three and a half hours to debate 330 pages. Especially at this time when Canadians are struggling, it is obligatory upon us to give them the time that they deserve.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative

Linked statement

“Too many young people cannot find jobs, and this budget does nothing to help them. I want the government to adopt the Conservative plan. We want to help businesses grow, fix immigration to lower competition for entry-level jobs, fund job training for the trades, and build homes where jobs are. We also want more flexible parental leave so young workers can afford to start families.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House on the budget bill today. It is also a pleasure for me that my second daughter, Lilly, is on the Hill today. It is great to have her here with us, and having my kids with me always reminds me how blessed I am. My kids really are the perfect combination. They have my wife’s beauty, my wife’s intelligence and my wife’s personality. That is the ideal combination, and I am sure members would agree. However, it is also when thinking about my children that I think about the future of this country and the kind of future we are building for them as they grow up, as they think about the jobs and opportunities they have and as they think about what they will be able to pass on materially, as well as the kind of quality of life they will be able to have more broadly. I think for many members, providing a better life for our children is a powerful motivator of the work that we do. Taking that perspective, it is very troubling to regularly hear about the challenges young people are facing in this country, such as the fact that we continue to have this youth unemployment crisis. Youth unemployment is at 14.3%. Young people are frustrated by their inability to find jobs, their struggles to find jobs in their fields and the lack of action by the government. The government has no plan to address the youth unemployment crisis. We hear its members re-announcing existing programs that have already existed for a long time, but there is no plan to meet the new challenges, which in so many ways are the results of their policies. Last fall, Conservatives put forward a constructive plan to address the youth unemployment crisis with very simple, specific interventions that aligned very much with what young people are asking for, what the business community is asking for and with what our country needs. Our plan is to unleash the economy, fix immigration, fix training and build homes where the jobs are. Unleashing the economy means addressing the fact that so much unemployment for young people is a result of businesses struggling to start, to grow and to expand. When businesses are optimistic about the future, they hire more young people because they are planning for growth. When businesses are more pessimistic about the future, young people are more likely to be let go, because it tends to be last in and first out when it comes to young people on the work site. If someone is worried about the future of their company, they are not going to fire the long-tenured employees first; it is going to be those newer hires who are going to be let go. Also, when small businesses are under pressure, it is harder for them to invest in training and supports. Of course, when giving someone their first job, a lot of businesses want to be able to help young people adjust to the workforce, but training, investment and costs are associated with that. When a business is so close to the margin, it is very hard to do that. As such, we need to create a climate in this country where small businesses in particular can start and grow and, therefore, be able to hire young people. That is what unleashing the economy is about. Number two is fixing immigration. A poorly designed immigration system under the Liberal government has led to intensified competition for entry-level positions. Newcomers who have not had their credentials recognized are competing against young people who are just starting out. We should have an immigration system that is aligned with the needs and interests of Canada and that identifies specific skill gaps while we, at the same time, try to train Canadian workers to fill those skill gaps to where the numbers are proportionate to what our country can actually handle. That is unleashing the economy and fixing immigration. Number three is fixing training. There has been a significant problem in this country with a misalignment between the training young people receive and what the labour market is actually looking for. A big part of that is our push to recognize the value of vocational training and the value of trade skills. University is a great path for some people, but it is not the path for everyone. There are many folks in this country who have pursued a vocational or trade path, have been extremely successful with that and are actually earning more and enjoying a higher standard of living than those who have pursued university degrees. We proposed this pillar of fixing training as part of our youth jobs plan, where we said that we should offer relatively more generous grants to those pursuing in-demand skills. The Liberals went in the opposite direction. In their last budget, they removed funding for students at private vocational institutions. For them, I think it was sort of an ideological thing about wanting to go after students who are seeking grants at private institutions, but really, it is not about private versus public; it is just about the fact that this is where these skills are offered. There are certain kinds of skills that, if people want to acquire that specific vocational skill, they cannot do it at a university or are much less likely to find a program of study at a university. There are many kinds of skills, with the way our post-secondary system is structured, that are learned at a private institution, yet, the government is going after and defunding the students who are studying at those kinds of institutions. Our proposal is to unleash the economy, fix immigration and training, and build homes where the jobs are. We need to do more to support those young people, people of all ages, who are looking to relocate to find employment, because we have regions in this country of very high unemployment and regions of very low unemployment. One thing we proposed to help young people and others relocate to find those opportunities is to offer an accelerated capital cost writeoff for employers who are investing in workforce housing to try to remove a barrier that exists that maybe makes it more difficult for young people and others to relocate for those job opportunities. It is a very simple plan that we put forward last fall to unleash the economy, fix immigration and training, and build homes where the jobs are. We put this forward wanting the government to implement it, yet in some areas that I have identified, the government is moving in the opposite direction. We continue to see no plan to address the youth unemployment crisis as part of this budget. What are the effects of high youth unemployment? We have pressure on young people to get more credentials that may or may not align with the needs of the labour market. We have high youth unemployment. We have high housing costs. All of these things make it so much more difficult for young people to launch themselves into the world. When it becomes harder for young people to launch themselves into adulthood, to find a job and to afford a home to finish their schooling, then they will potentially start hitting those key personal milestones later and later. This is a big contributing factor to the fact that, statistically, we now know that young people are having far fewer children than they tell pollsters they want to be having. In polls, on average, people say they want about 2.2 or 2.3 children, yet the real fertility rate is about 1.25, which means there is a major gap between the number of children people want to have and the number of children they are having. I think a big part of this is just the challenges in getting started in life, in being able to hit those key personal milestones as early as they might want to, because it is so hard to afford a home and get a job. This has long-term effects on people’s desires for a family not being realized. It also impacts the fact that we have an aging population with not as many workers contributing to the system to provide for the benefits our seniors, who have worked so hard and would like to see available to them. There are consequences down the line with respect to these problems impacting the challenges young people have launching themselves into adulthood. We have also put forward constructive plans to not only make it easier for young people to get into the workforce earlier, but also make it easier for young families to achieve their goals with respect to the number of children they want to have. We have proposed significant reforms to parental leave to make it easier for people who are working to balance work and family life. We have proposed, for instance, more flexible parental leave to allow people to pause and then resume parental leave. We have proposed allowing more learning on leave, so that a person who is on parental leave could always study and take university, trades or other kinds of courses while they are on parental leave. We have also proposed an exception to clawbacks to allow parents to earn income for caregiving while they are off watching their own children. These changes would make it easier for young families to achieve the goals they want and find a good balance between work and family life. As I have demonstrated, Conservatives are laser-focused on trying to make life better, especially for those who are starting out, for young people and those who are trying to start families and are struggling to hit those initial milestones that would allow them to launch themselves well into their dreams, both with respect to work and family life. We are proposing constructive proposals to try to address these challenges and would really like to see the government adopt some of those constructive proposals that we have put on the table. We would like to see it take ideas from our Conservative youth jobs plan. We would like to see it take some of the ideas from our proposal on parental leave reform, making it easier to balance work and family life. We have asked the government to implement these proposals. On Friday, in question period, I asked the government whether it would consider implementing some of our proposals for parental leave reform. We did not get an answer. The government simply came back with partisan insults. I would encourage its members to have a look at the constructive proposals we are putting forward and include them in our budget. Maybe if it did not shut down debate after three and a half hours, we would have more time to get through these constructive suggestions and put forward more of these ideas to make our country better.

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“I want to know if the member will vote for this budget bill. It funds national defence, limits government spending, and helps businesses cut emissions, which are all things Conservatives say they want.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague. He is asking us to consider the Conservatives’ proposal. I have a question for him. Budget 2025 includes measures such as increased defence spending, a greater focus on reducing emissions through incentives for the private sector, and a cap on federal government operating expenditures, measures that Conservative politicians have long claimed to support. I would like my colleague opposite to tell me whether he will support the budget implementation bill, which will help support the defence industry and economic development here in Canada.

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“Canada is in a recession, and young people are struggling. The government should stop praising itself, control its spending, and build a stronger military.”
  • A repeated line

    “We are the only G7 country in a recession.”

    Said 8 times by 8 members since May 29.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, that question did not relate to the specific budgetary policies that I discussed in my speech at all. I will just say in response that government members are eager to congratulate themselves at every turn. Canada is in a recession right now. We are the only G7 country in a recession. I would like to see a little more humility from government members and their taking stock of the fact that their policies have led us here and of the challenges young people are experiencing. I think we need a stronger national defence. I think we need control in our budget policy. I will believe the results when we see the results. Right now, what we are seeing is recession and continuing challenges, especially for those who are just starting out, young people and young families, who are trying to get ahead.

Tamara Kronis, Nanaimo—Ladysmith

Conservative
“This bill is very long and complex, but we have only debated it for three and a half hours. Can my colleague talk about how hard it is to properly debate this bill when the government wants to cut off debate?”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member spoke to one aspect of the 330‑page bill, which has 16 divisions plus the Defence Investment Agency. He was just asked a question about a different part, presumably, of the bill. Could my colleague speak to the difficulty for members of the House to be able to address the bill in a meaningful way when we have only had three and a half hours of debate, and the government is trying to shut down debate on it, given the complexity and the length of the bill?

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“The government is using its majority to shut down debate and ignore other parties. When they did not have a majority, we worked together to get things done. Now they are forcing this big budget bill through and undoing good work from committees.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I would have been happy to speak for three and a half hours on the bill myself, there is so much in it. I am sure members across the way would have enjoyed that opportunity. The government is using its majority in pernicious ways right now, and we have seen it. The previous reality of a minority Parliament was forced negotiation among parties, and we got a lot done under minority conditions. There were many cases in which Conservatives agreed to expedite certain ideas. We saw a lot of productive action at committees as well as in the House, but it required some back-and-forth. Then the government took its majority through admittedly unscrupulous means, twisting the arms of various people to get them to completely abandon all of their previous convictions. Now the Liberals are using this majority to shut down debate. They are using this majority to gut the good work done at committee. For instance, the Liberals’ first action as a majority was to undo good work done at committee on protecting victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military. Great work was done across parties at committee, and then the government immediately undid all of that work to make things less safe for those victims. It failed to respond to what they asked for. Now we have this massive budget implementation act where, again, the government is bringing down its fist of a majority to undermine the good, collaborative work that could have happened, which used to happen in this place.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“Youth unemployment is 14.3% today, just like it was in 2012. Our government is spending money to help young workers. The Conservatives did nothing when they were in power, so we should not listen to them now.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the member talked a lot about youth. When we take a look, back in 2012, youth unemployment was at 14.3%, which is the same percentage it is at today. If we do the comparison, we are actually investing, whether it is in the summer youth program or the Red Seal program. Back then, the Conservatives did nothing. I am wondering why the Conservatives did nothing when they had to face the same youth unemployment rate that we are facing today. Why should we listen to them today when they were such a disaster when the leader of the Conservative Party was sitting around the cabinet table back then?

Garnett Genuis, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan

Conservative
“The member is wrong to say Conservatives did nothing for skilled trades. Conservatives created grants for trades workers in 2006 and 2009. The Liberals cancelled those grants, and now they are just bringing them back.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

    Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary does not know what he is talking about, which is often true, but it is especially true in this case. Just to pick one example, the member says that Conservatives did nothing on the trades program and to look at the Liberals because they brought in these completion grants. However, the Conservatives brought in completion grants for the trades in 2009. We introduced, in our first budget in 2006, grants for trades workers. The Liberals cancelled those grants, but then reannounced that they were going to bring them back. It is pretty rich for them to say that the Conservatives did nothing when all the Liberals have done is announce the return of a program they—

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“I support this economic plan. It helps people with high living costs, builds more homes near transit, and helps local businesses grow.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Regina—Lewvan. I am pleased to rise today to speak to the spring 2026 economic update. At a time when many families are still feeling the strain of the cost of living, it is essential that our government continue to act in a responsible, practical and compassionate manner. In Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes, the people I represent are very clear about their concerns. They talk to us about grocery prices. They talk to us about housing. They tell us about their children. They also tell us about their aging parents. They tell us about their small businesses, their jobs, their retirement and their ability to make ends meet. These concerns are real, and they must guide our work here in the House of Commons. The spring economic update proposes measures designed specifically to address these realities. It proposes measures to make life more affordable, support housing construction, help workers and strengthen our economy. It also recognizes the importance of investing in communities, families, seniors, women and young people. I do not believe that an economic update should just be a series of numbers. Behind every policy, there are people. A family in Boisbriand is looking for a bigger home. A young couple in Deux-Montagnes wants to buy their first home. A senior in Rosemère wants to continue living with dignity in their community, and a business owner in Saint-Eustache wants to keep their employees and grow their business. These are the people we all need to work for. I want to begin by talking about the cost of living. Families across the country are facing tough choices. Prices have gone up, budgets are tight and people want to know that their government is there for them. Support measures for groceries and essentials are important because they provide direct support to the people who need it most. This support may appear modest to some, but for a family that has to watch every penny, for a single person, a single mother or a senior on a fixed income, it can make all the difference. Affordability must remain a top priority. Housing is a major issue. My riding is home to some beautiful communities. As I said earlier, Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes are places where people want to live, work, raise their children and age in place near their loved ones. For that to remain possible, we need more housing. We need housing that is accessible to everyone: young families, seniors and single people. We also need to work with the Government of Quebec, the municipalities, organizations and the private sector. The federal government cannot do it all on its own. It is by working with the municipalities, provinces and territories that we can build a stronger Canada. However, the federal government has an important role to play in speeding up construction, supporting partners and contributing to practical solutions. We must build more housing, but we have to be smart about it and build it close to services and public transit. Take, for example, the two stations located at either end of the Réseau express métropolitain, or REM. It is important that we build housing near this transit system. I believe it is open in Montreal’s west end as well. We need to build housing while respecting the quality of life in our neighbourhoods. We need to build housing that meets current and future needs. I also want to highlight the importance of supporting workers and businesses. SMEs play a vital role in Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. They create jobs, support families, contribute to our cities’ vitality, sponsor our local events and bring our commercial streets to life. However, they also face challenges: Operating costs are high, labour can sometimes be hard to find and investments are expensive. Entrepreneurs need stability and predictability. As my colleague for Lévis—Lotbinière would say, predictability in financial matters is important. Entrepreneurs also need measures that allow them to keep moving forward. The economic update supports growth, productivity, training and investments. These are important priorities for Canada and for our local businesses. When a business in Boisbriand invests in new equipment, it is good for the local economy. When an SME in Saint-Eustache hires a young worker, it is good for the future. When a business in Rosemère makes it through a tough time, the entire community benefits. I also want to talk about Quebec. Quebec has a strong, diversified and innovative economy. We have dynamic SMEs and qualified workers. We have strategic sectors, including clean technology, critical minerals, energy, construction and aerospace. They are found mainly in the Lower Laurentians, but also throughout the metropolitan area. The agri-food and agri-food processing industries are strongly represented in my riding, and the same is true of the AI industry in the Montreal area. The economic update recognizes the importance of supporting major projects, training and supply chains. That represents significant opportunities for Quebec. However, economic development must always be carried out responsibly. We must respect communities and the environment. We must include indigenous people and create sustainable, high-quality jobs. That is how we will build an economy that is both strong and fair. As chair of the women’s caucus, where we have achieved 41% gender parity, I would also like to point out that economic decisions have very real impacts on women. When we talk about the cost of living, we are talking about women. When we talk about housing, we are talking about women. When we talk about food security, we are talking about women. When we talk about violence, health, safe sport, community services and support for families, we are also talking about women. Women are at the heart of our economy. They are workers, entrepreneurs, caregivers, heads of households, students and volunteers. They are leaders in our communities. We must therefore ensure that our economic policies reflect their reality. A single mother looking for affordable housing, an elderly woman living alone, an entrepreneur wanting to grow her business, a young girl wanting to play sports in a safe environment, or a woman leaving a violent situation who needs a safe place: all these realities must be taken into account. It is a collective responsibility. As members know, I am proud to represent Rivière-des-Mille-Îles. I am proud to represent Rosemère, Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache and Deux-Montagnes in the House of Commons. These are strong, close-knit, and deeply compassionate communities with families that are community oriented, seniors who built our towns, young people eager to contribute, extraordinary community organizations, volunteers willing to give their time freely, and entrepreneurs creating jobs and local wealth. These people deserve a government that listens to them. They deserve a government that takes things seriously. They deserve a government that understands that the economy is not just about growth. The economy is about dignity, security, the ability to find housing, feed one’s family, and have access to a good job. It is also about aging in good health and within one’s community. It is the hope of building something better for our children. I would like to add a point about international trade. I also have the pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee on International Trade. Recently, we visited Brazil and Argentina. Even there, our Prime Minister’s leadership resonates. People are still talking about his speech in Davos: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.” Just imagine, people in Latin America are still talking about it. Now I will be happy to answer my colleagues’ friendly questions.

Marilène Gill, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan

Bloc Québécois
“I have questions about what the member said about women. The Bloc Québécois has suggested ways to help women, including fixing employment insurance.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I have a few friendly questions for my colleague regarding what she said about women. The Bloc Québécois proposed several measures to help women, including the EI reform we have been waiting for for several—

Marilène Gill, Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan

Bloc Québécois
“I want to know why the government left key supports for women out of the budget and the update. We need changes to employment insurance, seasonal worker benefits, money for seniors, and more health care funding.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a friendly question I would like to ask about women, and more specifically about EI reform, benefits for workers in seasonal industries and ending discrimination against seniors of all ages. We know that women, especially senior women, are more likely to find themselves in a precarious situation. There is also the whole issue of health transfers. We know that many women work in health care and that the government has decided to continue cutting health transfers. Why were these constructive proposals on areas that fall under the federal government’s jurisdiction not taken into account in the drafting of the budget or even in the recent economic update?

Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles

Liberal
“We are spending money on housing to help women escape unsafe homes. We are also helping people pay for groceries, which will especially help women and seniors who live alone.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 44 of 100

    None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that certainly is a friendly question. When we talk about women, we are talking about more than half of Canada’s population. On this side of the House, we are particularly mindful of that. Together, we are working very hard to advance the women’s agenda alongside our male allies and ensure that women are considered in all decisions. We have a plan to invest money in housing to ensure that women can escape unsafe homes where gender-based violence occurs. We are making sure that women are included everywhere. When we talk about the cost of groceries, women are generally the ones who handle the food budget. I used to be a grocer. My dad and I used to have a few grocery stores. It is mainly women who do the grocery shopping, and they are the ones who are affected first. Senior women often live longer than men, and they end up alone and facing more difficulties. The help we will be giving to pay for groceries will help these people, especially those living alone.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 126

  1. Private Members' Business Offender Rehabilitation Act 7 statements
  2. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 39 statements
  3. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 16 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  5. Oral Questions The Environment 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 14 statements
  7. Oral Questions Industry 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 10 statements
  9. Oral Questions Canadian Identity and Culture 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions The Economy 18 statements
  11. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 3 statements
  12. Oral Questions The Environment 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Foreign Affairs 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Justice 6 statements
  15. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  16. Government Orders Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 89 statements
  17. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 3 statements
  18. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 3 statements