Committee members
Chair
Claude Carignan
C - (Quebec - Mille Isles)
Deputy Chair
Éric Forest
ISG - (Quebec - Gulf)
Member
Andrew Cardozo
PSG - (Ontario)
Member
Pierre J. Dalphond
ISG - (Quebec - De Lorimier)
Member
Rosa Galvez
ISG - (Quebec - Bedford)
Member
Clément Gignac
CSG - (Quebec - Kennebec)
Member
Martine Hébert
ISG - (Quebec - Victoria)
Member
Joan Kingston
ISG - (New Brunswick)
Member
Jane MacAdam
ISG - (Prince Edward Island)
Member
Elizabeth Marshall
C - (Newfoundland and Labrador)
Member
Krista Ross
CSG - (New Brunswick)
National Finance (NFFN)
45th Parliament, 1st SessionClerk: Sara Gajic
Original members
Honourable Senators: Cardozo, Carignan, P.C., Forest, *Francis (or White), Galvez, Gignac, Hébert, *Housakos (or Martin), Kingston, MacAdam, Marshall, Moreau, P.C., *Moreau, P.C. (or LaBoucane-Benson), Pupatello, Ross, *Saint-Germain (or Clement), *Tannas (or Patterson), Varone
Committee membership changes
| Date | Senator | Modification |
|---|---|---|
| Thursday, March 12, 2026 | MacAdam |
FOR Loffreda
|
| Thursday, March 12, 2026 | Dalphond |
FOR Youance
|
Budget 2025 Implementation Bill, No. 1
Second Reading--Debate Adjourned
March 9, 2026
Moved second reading of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025.
She said: Honourable senators, I hope this will be the most exciting speech — given at 7:50 p.m. — that we’ve heard in some time; it’s a bit of pressure.
It’s my privilege to introduce the government’s Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in parliament on November 4, 2025, more commonly referred to as the budget implementation act, or BIA.
As the bill’s sponsor in the Senate, I would like to thank the Minister of Finance and National Revenue for entrusting me with this responsibility.
I appreciate the opportunity to explore in some detail the key elements of Bill C-15, whose purpose is to legislate many of the priorities proposed in Budget 2025.
We are at a critical juncture. We are living in uncertain times and constantly wondering what will happen next.
Bill C-15, the budget bill, aims to address these uncertainties and activate the levers over which the government has control, as the Prime Minister said.
This 638-page document is not for the faint of heart. I plan to go through each line with you; that would be the most helpful way. I was just checking whether you are all truly listening to me.
For brevity, today I won’t address every measure in the bill that would make it worthy of the Senate’s support.
I want to highlight items that Canadians looking for a more affordable life would find helpful, items that would make things easier for businesses and some of the queries put forward by members of various committees that looked at Bill C-15 in pre‑study.
We had the benefit of receiving a copy of the bill when it was introduced in the other place. This allowed us to get a head start and split it up across a number of Senate committees, which then began their pre-study.
I’m feeling the other senator’s pain in his English and mine in my French.
This allowed us to get a head start, since typically there are few changes or amendments to a budget bill. We were able to work almost in parallel with the other place, which was also studying the budget bill in its own committees.
I found this exercise very useful. Ministers responsible for several sections of the bill were able to receive feedback, requests for clarification and even amendments, when necessary, early in the legislative process.
Bill C-15 naturally starts with a number of tax measures, many of them making the lives of individuals more affordable. An example in Part 1 of the bill, which changes the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations, is that the limit of the Lifetime Capital Gains Exemption would be expanded so it applies to up to $1.25 million of eligible capital gains, applicable to dispositions that occur on or after June 25, 2024, with indexation of the limit to resume in 2026. That’s an increase from just over $1 million and good news for the many people who are homeowners.
Another bill, Bill C-4, aims to provide tax relief to nearly 22 million people by reducing the lowest marginal personal income tax rate from 15% to 14%.
Bill C-15 continues this benefit. It would also exempt the Canada Disability Benefit from income, maximizing its benefits, and proceed with expanding the list of expenses recognized under the disability supports deduction. This expanded list is meant to better support people with disabilities when they’re working, including things like service animals, ergonomic work chairs and navigation devices for low vision.
For the many who work as personal support workers — a field of work we all came to appreciate much more during and after COVID — Bill C-15 introduces a temporary personal support workers tax credit to provide up to $1,100 per year to eligible personal support workers, recognizing their vital contributions in our communities in a very tangible way.
A number of Finance Committee members asked questions about this measure to ensure it captured the personal support workers who work in many areas of health care. They confirmed that it included eligible health care establishments, including hospitals, nursing care facilities, residential care, facilities for care of the elderly, home health care establishments and other similar health care facilities or establishments.
More clarifying language regarding the responsibilities of employers was also added in an amendment, creating an explicit obligation in the Income Tax Act for employers to certify their eligible employees’ eligible earnings in the prescribed form and manner — a request that came from many of the unions that represent personal support workers.
On another important note, Division 44 of Part 5 enacts the national school food program act. This sets out the Government of Canada’s vision for the National School Food Program, which aims to provide meals for up to 400,000 more children each year beyond those served by existing school food programs, with $260 million per year starting in 2029-30. The current $1-billion, five‑year program started in 2025.
This division sets out the government’s commitment to maintaining long-term funding to be provided to provinces, territories and Indigenous Peoples for the ongoing implementation and maintenance of the program. This would, in effect, make the program permanent, something that has long been called for.
For businesses, Part 1 of Bill C-15 aims to enhance Canada’s Scientific Research and Experimental Development, or SR&ED, tax incentive program by increasing the enhanced credit expenditure limit from $3 million to $6 million, extending eligibility for the enhanced credit to certain Canadian public corporations and restoring capital expenditures as eligible costs.
As part of the government’s plan to attract and catalyze private sector investments, the bill would also ensure 100% first-year expensing for eligible manufacturing and processing machinery and equipment as part of Budget 2025’s productivity super-deduction.
We often talk about our lagging productivity. The budget includes concrete measures to encourage businesses to invest in innovation to boost their productivity.
When we discussed the budget bill last autumn, I gave you specific examples of companies, especially small start-ups that don’t have a huge bank account to draw on. These measures are crucial to their growth.
For example, there is an increase in that expenditure limit on which an enhanced 35% tax credit can be earned — from $3 million to $6 million — and a reinstatement of the eligibility of capital expenditures — machinery and equipment, et cetera — for both the deduction against income and investment tax credit components of that Scientific Research and Experimental Development, or SR&ED, program.
This brings our SR&ED tax program back in line with other OECD countries. We used to lead in this area, but we have not renewed those levels or the items that companies could include for many years. We have to keep it up.
As U.S. tariffs continue to raise costs for Canadian manufacturers, this measure will stimulate domestic manufacturing, enhance investment and reduce tax burdens for Canadian businesses. To protect the integrity of Canada’s tax base, Bill C-15 would also reform and modernize transfer pricing rules — the ones that govern where our companies will pay their income tax when they do business outside Canada. These changes come on the heels of public feedback going back to 2021 and better align with OECD standards, which is good.
The revised transfer pricing rules and documentation requirements included in the bill would apply to taxation years beginning after November 4, 2025.
Colleagues, knowing that Canada’s commitment to fighting climate change positions us to surpass economies that fail to adapt to this reality, Canada’s new government is exploring initiatives to further Canada’s standing as a clean energy superpower.
As part of the government’s Climate Competitiveness Strategy, Bill C-15 includes the enabling legislation to deliver the Clean Economy Investment Tax Credits, refundable credits equal to 15% of the capital costs of eligible investments in equipment related to low-emitting electricity generation, electricity storage and the transmission of electricity between provinces and territories — more encouragement to go green and to buy and sell within Canada. Budget 2025 also proposes including the Canada Growth Fund as an eligible entity under the Clean Economy Investment Tax Credits. It also proposes to introduce an exception so that financing provided by the Canada Growth Fund would not reduce the cost of eligible property for the purpose of computing the clean electricity investment tax credits. These measures would apply to eligible properties that are acquired or become available for use on or after budget day.
Furthermore, Bill C-15 enhances the suite of existing investment tax credits to further support investments in decarbonizing technologies and clean technology manufacturing, including the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Investment Tax Credit, or CCUS ITC. It maintains its full credit rates for an additional five years, up to 2035, which will provide a higher level of support for businesses investing in carbon capture, utilization and storage.
The Clean Technology Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit would be broadened to include more critical minerals essential for clean technology supply chains. The Critical Mineral Exploration Tax Credit would be expanded to cover 12 more minerals necessary for defence, semiconductors, energy and clean technologies, 4 of which I’ve heard of before: manganese, tungsten, tin and chromium. An amended list that some of the organizations forwarded also included phosphate. I am happy to furnish the complete list to all chemists here today.
Colleagues, at the start of my remarks, I mentioned the critical nature of the moment we find ourselves in. Amid a sizable trade shock and lingering uncertainty, times have been tough for Canadian businesses and families alike. Bill C-15 offers relief to businesses. Part 3 of Bill C-15 amends the Excise Tax Act, the Underused Housing Tax Act, the Select Luxury Items Tax Act and other related texts to implement those measures. The bill extends the Enhanced GST Rental Rebate to 100% to qualifying cooperative housing corporations and student residences built by universities, public colleges and school authorities, which will further incentivize the construction of affordable housing in Canada.
As for the Underused Housing Tax Act, Division 2 of Part 3 of the bill would end the underused housing tax in respect of 2025 and future calendar years. It also subsequently repeals the Underused Housing Tax Act and the Underused Housing Tax Regulations. When we asked why at committee, we received a refreshing answer: The amount that the program brought in did not warrant the cost of running it.
Finally, Division 3 of Part 3 would amend the Select Luxury Items Tax Act to end the luxury tax in respect of subject aircraft and vessels and would amend the Select Luxury Items Tax Regulations to provide greater clarity on the tax treatment of those subject items. These actions will reduce burdensome administrative and compliance costs and support the aviation and boating industries at a time of ongoing global uncertainty. It was never applied to Ontario-made cars purchased for under $100,000.
To advance Indigenous tax jurisdiction frameworks, Part 4 of Bill C-15 would amend the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act to, among other things, establish an opt-in framework for interested Indigenous governments to levy a value-added sales tax under their own laws on fuel, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and vaping products within their reserves or settlement lands. It also makes process-type improvements and machinery-of-government changes to streamline the administration of taxes under that act.
The government is introducing measures to make life more affordable for Canadians, and it is also advancing legislation that will increase competition and consumer choice.
Ultimately, these measures will give Canadians more control over their personal finances. Part 5 of the bill, for example, would amend several statutes to implement measures to modernize and support Canada’s financial sector.
Division 15 of Part 5 amends the Bank Act to raise the amount of funds that can be withdrawn immediately from a retail deposit account after the deposit of a cheque or other instrument and to remove the delay for the withdrawal of funds deposited by a cheque or other instrument that is not deposited in person. The minimum amount is being raised from $100 to $250. That, too, is an amendment to the bill we initially saw. Cheque payments accounted for only 2% of total payments made in Canada in 2024 but represented 22% of all payment value. Cheques still matter to many people. Some of us still use them, and some of us do not take pictures of them in order to deposit them.
This will allow more Canadians to increase their purchasing power and reduce their reliance on short-term credit, like payday loans or overdraft protection, which would primarily benefit low‑income individuals and seniors.
Meanwhile, Division 17 of Part 5 of the bill would amend the Bank Act, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act and the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act to make it easier for credit unions to enter the federal framework and expand so they can continue to serve more Canadians. Notably, Division 9 of Part 5 of the legislation introduces a complete consumer-driven banking act to ensure that individuals and businesses can safely and securely share their data with participating entities of their choice. This will facilitate access to lower-cost products, clearer choices and better tools to manage debt and reduce financial stress for Canadians. That proposed act addresses, among other things, accreditation and common rules governing national security, data sharing, security safeguards, consent, authentication, liability, complaints, administration, enforcement and screen scraping. This division would also make related amendments to the Access to Information Act, the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada Act and the Budget Implementation Act, 2024, No. 1, and it would repeal the existing Consumer-Driven Banking Act.
Moreover, Division 45 of Part 5 of the bill enacts the stablecoin act, which imposes requirements on persons and entities that create stablecoins and make them available for purchase, directly or indirectly, by persons in Canada.
That act also sets out the objects of the Bank of Canada in respect of that fiat-backed stablecoin — a type of cryptocurrency whose value is intended to remain stable relative to government‑issued currency — and requires the bank to maintain a public registry of stablecoin issuers. It also addresses, among other things, the redemption of stablecoins by issuers, the reserve of assets that issuers must maintain to fulfill their redemption obligations and the policies, such as in the areas of governance, risk management and data security, that they must establish. Well, thankfully, regulation is arriving.
This, honourable colleagues, will foster innovation and competition in the financial sector and build trust in digital payments.
The government is also taking steps to protect Canadians from financial fraud, whether it be SMS phishing, mysterious links, hidden phone calls or fake bank emails. All of these threaten the financial well-being of Canadians and are becoming increasingly sophisticated and hard to detect.
Division 16 of Part 5 would amend the Bank Act to, among other things, prohibit the activation of certain capabilities for a personal deposit account in Canada without the express consent of the person in whose name the account is kept, permit a natural person in whose name such an account is kept to deactivate certain account capabilities, adjust certain transaction limits on the account, require institutions to establish policies and procedures for detecting and preventing consumer-targeted fraud and require institutions and the Commissioner of the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada to prepare annual reports on consumer-targeted fraud.
Division 18 of Part 5 amends the Special Economic Measures Act to protect Canada’s financial system from potential unintended consequences of sanctions and ensure financial institutions do not unduly profit from sanctions obligations so that, for example, banks are not benefiting from an individual’s assets that have been frozen by the government.
You’ve heard the government often speak of making a seismic difference in the building of homes. This budget puts its money where its mouth is.
Government efforts are already helping to scale up the supply of homes and bring down costs. But restoring affordability over the long term will require sustaining this momentum and closing the supply gap. This is where Canada’s new housing agency, Build Canada Homes, comes in. Federal dollars invested in Build Canada Homes will be leveraged to attract private capital, investors and builders to expand housing supply.
By putting conditions in place to catalyze maximum investment while mainstreaming advanced methods of construction, Canada has the potential to cut building timelines by up to 50%, reduce costs by as much as 20% and lower emissions by approximately 20% during construction.
Division 3 of Part 5 of Bill C-15 would provide, among other things, that an aggregate amount not exceeding $11.5 billion to fund the operations and activities of Build Canada Homes and an aggregate amount not exceeding $1.5 billion as a contribution of capital to, or to purchase shares in, Canada Lands Company Limited may be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Bill C-15 would also enact the high-speed rail network act, which establishes a legislative framework to facilitate the implementation of a rail network that allows for the carrying of passengers at high speed between Quebec and Ontario.
I had the chance to mention at committee that this issue is near and dear to a number of senators, and a number had many questions of Alto when they were brought before the Finance Committee. Senator Gignac and I had, in previous roles, spent a few million dollars updating the 16 reports and studies that had been done long before he and I became ministers of economic development and trade in our respective provinces. After lots of talk, now it seems we’re seeing some action. But good process is key, and I expect that the Minister of Transport will field many more questions as he comes before committee members this week.
The act deems the construction of the railway lines that are to be part of the high-speed rail network to have been approved under section 98 of the Canada Transportation Act. It provides that the construction, operation, decommissioning and abandonment of each segment of the high-speed rail network, and any incidental physical activity, are subject to the Impact Assessment Act. It permits certain land to be subject to a notice of right of first refusal or a notice of prohibition on work, amends the expropriation process in relation to the high-speed rail network, provides that Indigenous knowledge that is provided in confidence in relation to the high-speed rail network is treated as confidential, and makes certain parts of the Official Languages Act applicable to certain entities, including those that operate a railway that is part of the high-speed rail network.
We spent a lot of time on Division 5 of Part 5 at committee as well. It amends the Red Tape Reduction Act to authorize ministers to grant temporary exemptions from the application of provisions of certain acts of Parliament and instruments with the aim of facilitating the design, modification or administration of regulatory regimes to encourage innovation, competitiveness or economic growth. This became known as the regulatory sandbox, and there were many questions.
The government heard concerns regarding this clause as it was originally drafted. It supported the proposed guardrails as amended by the other place. The scope now of regulatory sandboxes has been restricted and cannot be used to grant exemptions from certain federal laws. It is limited to the clean technology or financial technology sectors. Parliamentary oversight and reporting have been strengthened by requiring the minister to engage in a public consultation process, and the minister is now required to table a report to Parliament within 90 days of the exemption. A “two-key” solution has also been added. Two ministers must now approve the exemption.
Another clause eliminating red tape for Canada Post, clause 196 of Bill C-15, seeks to amend the Canada Post Corporation Act to modernize the stamp rate-setting process to allow Canada Post to more expediently update stamp rates. However, stakeholders, including the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian Urban Libraries Council, warned that the amendments as initially drafted may unintentionally end or jeopardize the long-standing Canada Post practice of delivering materials free of postage to blind Canadians via the Literature for the Blind program as well as providing reduced rates of postage for library materials. Amendments that now appear in this bill clarify that these services will remain in place.
Division 27 of Part 5 of the bill amends the Export and Import Permits Act to authorize the Governor-in-Council to add articles to the Export Control List and the Import Control List for reasons related to Canada’s economic security interests. Items evolve so quickly in that world that we must give our ministers the ability to react quickly to a changing landscape.
Division 28 of Part 5 of the bill amends the Aeronautics Act to further strengthen Canada’s aviation safety and security regimes — a crucial move at a time when global aviation and aerospace are under extreme pressure.
Division 29 of Part 5 amends the Canada Transportation Act to provide the Minister of Transport with the authority to make interim orders to give effect to international standards or ensure compliance with Canada’s international obligations. Again, as the international environment changes daily, our ministers have to be able to respond quickly.
For air passengers, amendments that build on previous reforms will strengthen air passenger protection regulations and make them more effective by broadening their powers. These amendments will include mandatory compensation for baggage disruptions, losses or delays, as well as refunds where government-issued travel advisories result in cancellations.
As we are all aware, Budget 2025 released details on the government’s Comprehensive Expenditure Review with the aim of delivering $13 billion in savings annually by 2028-29. Combined with other measures, Budget 2025 delivers $60 billion in savings and revenues over five years. The government has stated that these savings will involve workforce adjustments to return the size of the public service to a more sustainable level, while also protecting diversity in the public service workforce and ensuring a strong, younger generation of public servants.
Division 7 of Part 5 of the bill amends the Public Service Superannuation Act to provide a temporary early retirement option during a period for which a workforce reduction initiative is in effect. It also makes a related amendment to the Income Tax Regulations. Group 1 includes eligible public servants who are at least 50 years of age or older who joined before January 2013, and Group 2 includes eligible public servants who are 55 years of age or older who joined after January 2013. Both groups will be eligible to apply to retire with an immediate pension based on years of service with no penalty for early retirement, subject to parameters set by the Treasury Board. A number of questions were raised at our committee related to the reduction of the workforce.
In conclusion, honourable senators, as Canadians continue to feel the impact of ongoing challenges, including the uncertainties brought about by the developments on the trade and tariff front, I trust you will find these measures a great start in advancing the government’s agenda, which aims to give Canada’s business community a competitive edge and aims to bring financial relief to many of our fellow Canadians.
I would be happy to speak further to Bill C-15 tomorrow at the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. The Minister of Finance will be joining us to answer questions directly.
Thank you for your attention and I eagerly look forward to examining budget Bill C-15 further in committee. Merci.
Would the senator take a question?
Yes, thanks.
Thank you, Senator Pupatello. Congratulations on sponsoring this bill, and congratulations on your speech. I’m sure you could have gone on a lot longer with more detail and kept us totally riveted.
My question is about Alto. I am a senator from Ottawa, and I’m very pleased about the idea of high-speed rail coming through Ottawa. There had been earlier proposals that it would go from Montreal to Toronto without coming to Ottawa, so this is welcome news.
I do want to raise with you some of the concerns that have been put forward. You will have heard about this. Many of us in the Senate have heard those voices as well, certainly both in terms of communications to us and in the local media.
The concern includes a couple of things. One is that there is not enough information that Alto has shared so far, and certainly when you are dealing with expropriation on this large scale, there will be some inconvenience felt, whether it’s to individual farms or entire communities. My concern is that we could end up with a debate that’s rural folks versus urban folks. Urban dwellers will benefit most from this high-speed rail.
Given the kinds of exemptions that we’re giving in this bill, how can we ensure that Alto conducts adequate consultation with people? If it’s really not workable in the end, would the government consider using the current corridors of railway lines that exist so that we wouldn’t have to deal with that level of expropriation?
Thank you. I am pleased to receive the question and delighted that Minister MacKinnon, our Minister of Transport, will be appearing before the National Finance Committee on Wednesday, given the number of questions that were raised at the committee’s prior meeting. We have certainly passed those questions along to him. I expect him to come very prepared.
In particular around expropriation, let me give you a little bit of information. First, there is not yet a defined route. In terms of the many emails that I have received — I’m sure you have received them as well — a route has not been determined. Until they actually determine the route, then they would move to the next step of public consultation.
In fact, the measures of the act around expropriation align Canada with the provinces’ regimes, both Ontario and Quebec. Similar measures are well established for major infrastructure projects in both Ontario and Quebec through the Building Transit Faster Act, 2020 as well as the Act respecting expropriation respectively. There were a number of questions that we put to Alto at committee — you were there as well — giving them many examples of where it has been done in the past and just how fairly people have been treated. It will not provide solace, I think, given the uncertainty that is there today because a route has simply not been selected. I anticipate that the minister is going to address this in much more detail on Wednesday.
Would you take another question?
Yes.
Thank you. My question is also about Alto and the high-speed rail.
I know the route hasn’t been completely sorted out, but certainly wherever it goes, it will cross farmland. What do we tell farmers who reside, have properties and conduct business between Toronto and Quebec City and whom have told us that, in fact, this high-speed rail will split their farms — or could split their farms — and make their farming operations unsustainable and not financially viable? What do we tell farmers about that, when and if a route is selected and it goes right through numerous farms between Toronto and Quebec?
Thank you. Not to repeat it, but, again, those are the same questions that I have received in emails from many people, mostly rural Canadians. I think it is true, as Senator Cardozo stated, there are benefits that might be seen by the large populations around urban settings, but the impact will certainly be felt by our rural communities where the train will actually be going through.
When the route is selected, at that point, I think that type of public consultation is going to be key. I heard the mayor from the United Counties of Prescott and Russell this morning on CBC Radio, talking about the impact even in small towns. Where does the road go, et cetera? These are all very good questions. I think they are prepared to answer those and also to deal with landowners when it comes to that.
Unfortunately, in Canada, we don’t have enough exposure to building very large projects. That’s a whole separate issue, but I would like to think that we have to get this methodology done properly so that we can continue to use it. In particular, from the moment that I came in, we have all talked about these large infrastructure projects that are finally coming to Canada, and we need to address how we do it in order to do it properly.
Can you confirm that when the time comes, there will be frank, open, honest and long dialogue with those folks who are farming today and may, in fact, not be able to do so in the future?
I am certain that I’m going to put that question to the minister when we see him on Wednesday, just in case you are not there. We will certainly ask him about all of the landowners, for sure, and farmers in particular who are looking to continue farming for multiple generations.
Senator Pupatello, would you take another question?
Yes.
Thank you.
I wanted to ask about the Red Tape Reduction Act components of the bill. I’m a big fan of regulatory modernization and agility, and I have been pushing for the use of sandboxes.
Can you give me some insight into the pushback from the opposition in the House of Commons to add red tape to the Red Tape Reduction Act process? It doesn’t make any sense to me. It is a well-proven method around the globe. It has been proven to be very helpful as a way for regulators to understand innovators and for innovators to understand the objectives of regulators and how to modernize regulations. What was the reason for these changes? I see them as a step backwards.
Thank you for that question. I don’t want to make assumptions on the part of the opposition in the House of Commons.
However, I will say that there were concerns that were equally expressed at the Senate committee from those who heard the bill and talked about, in particular, the regulatory sandbox and lack of regulation and protection.
We heard from a number of environmental groups, for example, who were worried their laws would be exempt and that people would be running roughshod over environmental objectives just for the sake of it.
Since there were so many questions, the amendments that, in fact, were put forward before the bill actually landed here very much scoped the use of these regulatory sandboxes, so it’s limited to technology sectors. It also limited which acts would be allowed to be in that sandbox.
In addition, it added oversight so that two ministers have to sign off on the exemption. It also obligates the minister to prepare a report within 90 days when they’ve given an exemption.
There are a number of checks and balances that have been added. I think time will tell once it’s actually in use, and we can reference several technology-type companies — the finance sector, for example — they can show what they can do, use their innovation and prove that the laws are not being trodden on, and that it’s actually working well. That will eventually lead to better regulation, in my view.
Honourable senators, I rise today as the critic of Bill C-15, the Budget 2025 implementation act.
It goes without saying that the sheer size of this legislation is a serious obstacle to proper scrutiny by this chamber. As amended by the other place, the bill now spans 604 pages, contains 606 clauses and amends or repeals more than 50 statutes and regulations.
It bundles together tax reforms, infrastructure authorizations, financial sector changes, social benefit adjustments, Indigenous tax frameworks, housing and GST/HST measures, veterans’ and RCMP pension updates, competition and consumer protection rules, environmental and energy regulatory changes, digital and financial data-governance regimes and the creation of several new framework statutes.
In addition, it authorizes more than $44 billion in spending.
In an effort to manage this unwieldy package, the Senate asked its committees to undertake a pre-study. Eleven committees reviewed portions of the bill, with the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance taking the lead. Their reports, taken together, exceeded 9,000 words and identified many concerns.
During clause-by-clause consideration, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance considered 35 amendments to the bill and adopted 14 of them. These include: amendments to the Income Tax Act; to add phosphate to the list of eligible critical minerals and correct a technical issue in the tax provisions; amendments to the Canada Post Corporation Act to preserve free postage for materials for the blind and reduced postal rates for library materials; amendments to the Red Tape Reduction Act to add further conditions and reporting requirements to the regulatory sandbox provisions, because some of us do actually care about transparency; an amendment to the Bank Act to increase the amount of a cheque subject to immediate access from $100 to $250; an amendment to the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, requiring consultation with the Privacy Commissioner before certain data mobility regulations are made; and an amendment to the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act, requiring a report to Parliament when a minister grants an exemption in urgent public health or safety circumstances.
Taken together, that record illustrates both the scale of the bill and the breadth of the issues we are dealing with today, underscoring that we cannot address legislation of this scale with real thoroughness. Instead, we are left skimming across the surface like a stone skipping across the surface of the water. That is regrettable, but it is the reality before us.
So with the time I have, I want to begin with a brief overview of the bill and then draw your attention to a few concerns that, I believe, should concern all of us.
Let me begin with the overview.
Bill C-15 has five parts.
Part 1 amends the Income Tax Act and related regulations to implement a range of personal and business income tax measures. These include excluding the Canada Disability Benefit from taxable income, extending the enhanced credit rate for the Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Investment Tax Credit through 2035, and allowing immediate expensing for certain new property additions tied to productivity-enhancing assets, among other changes.
Part 2 repeals the Digital Services Tax Act and the Digital Services Tax Regulations, and makes consequential amendments to other legislation.
Part 3 makes several indirect tax changes. Among other things, it confirms that osteopathic services provided by practitioners who are not osteopathic physicians are subject to GST and HST.
It also extends the Enhanced GST Rental Rebate to eligible co‑operative housing corporations and student residences, permits input tax credits for redeemed coupons where payments are made solely in the course of commercial activities, and removes both the underused housing tax and the luxury tax as they apply to aircraft and vessels.
Part 4 creates an opt-in framework under the First Nations Goods and Services Tax Act that would allow participating Indigenous governments to impose their own value-added sales tax — under their own laws — on fuel, alcohol, cannabis, tobacco and vaping products within reserves or settlement lands. It also makes administrative and machinery-of-government changes intended to simplify tax administration under the act.
Part 5 consists of 45 divisions. Together, they implement a wide range of measures by amending numerous acts across multiple policy areas. They enact three new statutes.
Bill C-15 does all of this in 167,185 words.
I will acknowledge that there is much in Bill C-15 that Conservatives agree with. Obviously, there’s so much in there. Repealing the Digital Services Tax, eliminating the underutilized housing tax measures, amending the Select Luxury Items Tax Act measures, creating early retirement options for public servants to help reduce the size of the federal workforce, supporting the growth of the federal credit unions, making changes to the RCMP Superannuation Act and introducing the Stablecoin Act are all positive measures — to name but a few.
However, the constructive elements in the bill are seriously overshadowed by two very significant concerns. The first is the repeated tendency of the Liberal government to sidestep parliamentary accountability.
When confronted with economic or public health emergencies, this government repeatedly seeks to free itself from what it appears to view as the inconvenience of parliamentary scrutiny. We saw this in 2020, when the Liberal government introduced Bill C-13, the COVID-19 Emergency Response Act. That bill would have granted the then-finance minister Bill Morneau sweeping powers to spend, borrow and tax without parliamentary approval until December 2021, a period of roughly 21 months.
It was only after strong Conservative opposition that the government was forced to significantly scale back that proposal. The fact that this was their instinctive response — to shift significant power to the executive branch — is telling. Unfortunately, it was not a one-off.
We saw this again in Bill C-5, which introduced the Building Canada Act. Faced with the economic turbulence caused by President Trump’s tariffs, Prime Minister Carney moved to give ministers sweeping authority to override numerous acts of Parliament and regulations in order to advance projects deemed to be in the national interest.
I agree, Senator Pupatello, we haven’t had national projects of any magnitude over the last 10 years. Under that legislation, the government not only sought the power to bypass any or all of the acts or regulations listed in Schedule 2 but also wanted the power to add additional acts to the exemption list by order-in-council.
Once again, the opposition pushed back and pushed back hard. As a result, the bill was scaled back. Seventeen acts of Parliament were removed from the list of laws that could be bypassed, including the Access to Information Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Criminal Code, the Indian Act, the Explosives Act and a dozen others that I do not have time to list.
Of course, the success of the opposition was due to the fact that we had two successive minority parliaments. Imagine what would have happened if we had had majority parliaments over in the House.
Now, in Bill C-15, we see the same pattern again. The government once more tried to give itself the power to exempt an entity from any act of Parliament except the Criminal Code. It did so through the “sandbox” provision in the Red Tape Reduction Act, a measure Conservatives supported in principle but not without clear guardrails and firm limits.
At committee, the official opposition succeeded in amending this part of the bill by adding 14 more amendments to the list of laws that could not be bypassed. Those include the Access to Information Act, the Auditor General Act, the Canada Elections Act, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Export and Import Permits Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Foreign Influence Transparency and Accountability Act, the Investment Canada Act, the Lobbying Act, the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, the Privacy Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, and the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act.
It is alarming that the government would seek the power to bypass acts of Parliament of that significance, yet we repeatedly see this tendency for them to try to skirt parliamentary oversight.
For example, during our committee study of Bill C-15, two ministers refused to appear and testify before the Fisheries and Oceans Committee and the Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources Committee. I do not think this should be interpreted as diminishing the role of the Senate because I believe it reflects the government’s view of Parliament as a whole. The Prime Minister prefers to run government the way a CEO runs a business: by relying on executive authority to make decisions, rather than submitting those decisions to meaningful parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
That same reflex is also evident in the government’s repeated insistence on exempting laws and regulations from the Statutory Instruments Act. While there can be legitimate reasons to bypass this legislation, those occasions should be few and far between. Yet, under this government, they have become routine. In Bill C-15 alone, there are 11 instances in which a law or regulation is exempted from the Statutory Instruments Act, and that, colleagues, should raise red flags.
The Statutory Instruments Act, or SIA, serves a critical purpose in our parliamentary process. It was enacted in the early 1970s to replace the outdated Regulations Act, and it stands as a safeguard for Canadians against unchecked executive rule‑making. In 1968, the MacGuigan committee issued a stark warning that delegated legislation was proliferating too easily, evading scrutiny and escaping public view.
The solution was to introduce the SIA, which created a rigorous process for how regulations are made, including legal vetting before they come into force, mandatory registration, prompt publication in the Canada Gazette, judicial notice and indexing for public access.
It also mandates that regulations be reviewed by the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, thereby embedding parliamentary oversight into the ordinary course of federal rule-making.
Bypassing this legislation strips away those protections, leaving Canadians vulnerable. Without front-end legal checks, rules evade standardized quality control. Delayed or absent publication in the Canada Gazette obscures the law from public view. And when committee scrutiny is sidelined, accountability is reduced to patchy, discretionary disclosure after the fact.
The result is diminished transparency, a weakened public right to know the rules that govern daily life and a greater risk of unaccountable power in the hands of regulators. Adherence to the SIA is not merely procedural; it is a cornerstone of democratic governance, and that is why this government’s repeated decision to bypass it is troubling.
The point, colleagues, is that these are not isolated procedural shortcuts. They reveal a broader governing approach, one that treats scrutiny as an obstacle to be managed rather than a constitutional safeguard to be upheld and respected. Whether by limiting ministerial accountability before committees or by repeatedly carving decisions out of the normal legislated safeguards, the pattern is the same: less transparency, less oversight and more power concentration in the executive hands of government.
That is my first concern.
But there is also a second, broader concern in the context surrounding this bill, and that is the erosion of fiscal discipline.
This is not just some Conservative talking point. The government’s own projections in Budget 2025 make the problem impossible to ignore. Consider the following, honourable colleagues:
First, total spending projected in Budget 2025 has increased by almost $40 billion for this fiscal year, reaching $580.9 billion. That is an increase from 15.9% of GDP to 16.5%.
Second, over the next five years, the government plans to add $320 billion in new spending, an amount equal to more than half of this year’s entire budget.
Third, our public debt charges — colleagues, listen to this — are expected to reach $55.6 billion this year, but it doesn’t end there. They are projected to rise to $76.1 billion by 2029-30. In other words, the federal government now spends more money servicing the national debt than in transfer payments for health to the provinces. Think about that, honourable senators. In fact, over the next five years, even if every dollar raised through the GST was devoted solely to interest payments, the government would still come up more than $37 billion short.
Fourth, this year’s deficit is projected to reach $78.3 billion, almost double what was forecast in the 2024 Fall Economic Statement. Over the next five years, the government projects that our cumulative deficits will exceed $320 billion. All of this will be added to the national debt, pushing our total federal liabilities to $2.9 trillion.
If that does not alarm you, colleagues, it should. If you are taking comfort in the fact that the government claims to have fiscal anchors, I would suggest that confidence is misplaced because in Budget 2025 — Prime Minister Carney’s first budget — the government breached all three of the 2024 fiscal anchors.
Anchor 1 was to cap the deficit at $40.1 billion in the fiscal year 2023-24. As I said, we blew past that marker. Anchor 2 was to maintain a declining debt-to-GDP ratio. The government’s current projections tell us they are not even going to bother trying to hit this one for at least four more years. Anchor 3 was to have declining deficits.
Those are three fiscal anchors and three failures to abide by them.
After breaking those commitments, the government sought to reassure Canadians by introducing two new anchors. The first was a promise to balance day-to-day operating spending with revenues by 2028-29. The second was a commitment to maintain a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio.
We were assured that these would serve as guardrails to keep the government out of the fiscal ditch. Colleagues, I sincerely wish that they were true, but, remarkably and regrettably, they are not.
The promise to balance the operating budget by 2028-29 does nothing to constrain spending in the current fiscal year because that measure does not even come into play for another four years. A requirement to balance the operating budget four years from now is not a guardrail. It is a signpost. It is a dream. It tells us where the government says it wants to go, but it does not do anything to force fiscal discipline today, without which you will not get to your destination.
Likewise, the promise to maintain a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio also does nothing to constrain spending this year. Why? Because this fiscal year is the base year. We are not measuring this year against the year before. We are measuring future years against this one. That means wherever we land this year becomes the benchmark. This year’s deficit-to-GDP ratio is not being restrained by the anchor; it is setting the anchor.
That is concerning because last year our deficit-to-GDP ratio was 1.2%. This year, according to the budget itself, it will rise to 2.5%, an increase of 108% in a single year. And it is that new 2.5% level that will now become the standard against which future years are judged.
Colleagues, the reality is this: There is no fiscal anchor for this year.
But it gets worse. Not only do these so-called fiscal anchors fail to apply to the current fiscal year, but they are also largely meaningless for the years ahead.
Take the first anchor: the promise to balance day-to-day operating spending with revenues by 2028-29. That commitment gave us no reassurance because, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer has pointed out, the government’s expanding definition of capital investment is so broad that it includes tax expenditures and subsidies, which align with neither international standards nor accepted practices. In other words, it is easily manipulated. Spending can simply be shifted from the “operating” column to the “capital” column in order to create the appearance of meeting targets.
But, colleagues, even if the government never takes advantage of that accounting flexibility, even if it does not shift a single dollar from one category to another, this anchor still means very little because it captures only part of the total spending while placing no meaningful limit on overall expenditures and no limit at all on the continued growth of our national debt.
So what about the second anchor, the promise to maintain a declining deficit-to-GDP ratio? I’ll admit it sounds good at first. It sounds like the government is slowly going to rein in spending, but that is not the reality.
A declining deficit-to-GDP ratio is an ineffective fiscal anchor because it does not ever require the government to reduce the annual deficit. In fact, it permits the deficit to grow every single year, year after year. As the economy expands, the deficit can expand with it, yet the government will still claim to be operating within its so-called fiscal guardrails.
Let me illustrate this for you. If the deficit reaches $78.3 billion this year, as projected in the budget — it’s not me saying this — then next year, based on the government’s own GDP projections, the Carney government will be able to run a deficit of $81.8 billion and still claim that they fall within the 2.5% deficit-to-GDP ratio. Those are pretty good mathematics, I guess, and very good talking points.
The year after that, the deficit could rise to $83.6 billion, then to $90.5 billion and then, before you know it, $94.3 billion, just year after year. In other words, between now and 2029-30, the government could increase the annual deficit by more than 20% and still claim to be within their fiscal anchor. This would mean that within four years the legislated borrowing cap, which Bill C-15 raised to $2.5-plus trillion, would need to be raised repeatedly over the next few years to more than $3.3 trillion, all while operating within the fiscal parameters and the fiscal anchors set by the government.
I invite you, colleagues, to go back to 2015 and check and see what the nation’s debt was as compared to the projected $3.3 trillion. I guarantee that if you take the time to look at it, you’ll fall off your seats. Colleagues, the simple truth is this: We are operating without effective fiscal anchors and without fiscal discipline.
On November 6 of last year, Fitch Ratings underscored that concern when it said:
Canada’s . . . proposed budget . . . underscores the erosion of the federal government’s finances . . . . While Canada’s rating is broadly stable, persistent fiscal expansion and a rising debt burden have weakened its credit profile and could increase rating pressure over the medium term.
Fitch then identified three central problems: first, a deficit that is now roughly double the pre-pandemic average; second, gross general government debt projected to reach 111% of GDP by 2026, far above the “AA” median of 45%; and third, the government’s failure to set out any credible path back to fiscal normalcy.
Fitch concluded with this damning observation:
. . . the Canadian government has a track record of upward deficit revisions, with subsequent budget updates consistently worse than prior projections. . . . Most recently, for instance, the government breached all three Budget 2024 guideposts, which included: 1) capping the federal deficit at CAD40.1 billion in FY 23-24, 2) maintaining a declining debt-to-GDP ratio, and 3) shrinking deficits.
Colleagues, there is no doubt that we are living in difficult times, and difficult times can call for a government to take meaningful action. However, those circumstances do not relieve a government from its duty to remain accountable to Parliament or disciplined in its use of public funds. If anything, they heighten that duty, and, in both respects, this government is falling short.
Bill C-15 is not just a large and unwieldy budget implementation bill; it reflects a government that has grown increasingly comfortable with concentrated power, reduced oversight and weakened fiscal restraint. And that is what makes this bill so troubling. The problem is not confined to particular clauses; it is the governing direction behind them: more freedom for the executive, less meaningful review by Parliament and fewer real limits on the use of public money.
These are not abstract concerns. They affect not only how power is exercised but also the fiscal course that successive Liberal governments have charted for the country toward higher spending, higher borrowing, rising debt charges and a weaker foundation for the years ahead.
Colleagues, I’m not trying to be alarmist, but I’m concerned. I’m concerned by a government that has become too comfortable asking Parliament for less scrutiny and Canadians for more debt. I’m concerned by a pattern that weakens accountability at the very moment it weakens fiscal discipline. And I am concerned because these decisions do not end with this bill; they shape the kind of country we’re building and the burdens we’re leaving the next generation of Canadians.
Bill C-15 contains some measures of merit, no doubt — I dealt with some of them early on in this speech — but the governing approach it reflects and the fiscal context surrounding it should concern every senator in this chamber. Thank you, colleagues.
Date: Mon, Mar 23, 2026 at 1:19 PM
Subject: Fwd: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: <info@blueskystrategygroup.com>,
Cc: <ned.kuruc@parl.gc.ca>, <clifford.small@parl.gc.ca>, <olivier.duhaime@parl.gc.ca>, <Speaker.President@parl.gc.ca>
Notice of Meeting
Agenda
|
This is why three byelections could change the makeup of the House of Commons
OTTAWA — Three byelections are being held on April 13 and the results could have an impact on both the makeup of Parliament and how long it lasts.
Here’s a primer on how things could change.
Where are the byelections?
The votes are in two Liberal stronghold seats in the Toronto area and one contested riding in Quebec, north of Montreal.
Voters in Scarborough Southwest and University—Rosedale will choose new members of Parliament after two former Liberal cabinet ministers stepped down.
Bill Blair left his seat to become Canada’s high commissioner to the U.K., while Chrystia Freeland has a number of new roles, including as economic adviser to the Ukrainian president and CEO of the Rhodes Trust.
Observers expect the Liberals to hold both ridings. The third byelection is the one with the most intrigue.
The race in Terrebonne last April was the closest in the country — the Liberals won by a single vote on election night. A court challenge was filed after it was found that Elections Canada put an incorrect return address on some mail-in ballots, which were never counted.
The Supreme Court of Canada invalidated the result in February and the vote is being redone.
Polling aggregator 338 Canada says Terrebonne, which has voted Bloc Québécois in recent elections, is a toss-up between the Liberals and Bloc.
Why is Terrebonne so important to the Liberals?
If the Liberals hold the two Toronto seats, they’ll have 172 MPs and a majority in the House of Commons.
But the House Speaker is Liberal MP Francis Scarpaleggia and the Speaker only votes in the event of a tie. A government with 172 seats needs at least one opposition member to vote with them or abstain from voting to pass legislation.
If the Liberals win in Terrebonne, they’ll have that critical extra vote.
Why is this situation so unusual?
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s team has been trying to do something that hasn’t been done in living memory — turn a minority government into a majority by recruiting members from opposition parties.
It started with Nova Scotia MP Chris d’Entremont, who crossed the floor in November after the government introduced its budget. Ontario MP Michael Ma made the same trek from the Conservative side of the House just before Christmas.
It took several months to seal the deal with Alberta Conservative Matt Jeneroux, who joined Carney’s team in February, and Nunavut MP Lori Idlout, who left the dwindling NDP bench earlier this month.
The Conservatives have slammed these moves and have accused Carney of cutting “shady backroom deals” and creating an “undemocratic” majority. They’ve stopped short of calling for rule changes to prevent floor-crossings in the future.
What would change in the House of Commons if the Liberals get a majority?
The biggest change is about confidence votes.
Canadians have elected minority Liberal governments in three elections since 2019. In order to stay in power, minority governments have to survive tests of Parliament’s confidence in the form of votes on throne speeches, budgets and non-confidence measures.
A majority government can breathe a little easier on those key votes.
But Éric-Antoine Menard, vice-president and head of Quebec operations at North Star Public Affairs, said 172 is “not a magical number.”
Majority governments typically also hold majorities on committees — places where the opposition can really slow down legislation.
MPs unanimously agreed in June to set up committees for the rest of this Parliament made up of five Liberals, four Conservatives and one member from the Bloc Québécois.
The Liberals don’t automatically get another seat on committees if they get a majority, and committees can’t be reset by proroguing Parliament and starting a new session with a throne speech.
If the government wants more control over committees, it will need to either get the opposition parties to agree to make a change that limits their power, or amend the Standing Orders.
Menard said he thinks that’s a fight the Liberals don’t want.
“There’s there’s no particular rush that I see on the government’s part to just take control of the House of Commons and disrupt the mood there,” he said.
“The mood is generally positive. The government is riding high in the polls, it’s moving its agenda by working with some of the other parties, which I think currently Canadians kind of appreciate.”
Susan Smith, principal and co-founder of BlueSky Strategy Group, disagrees.
“I think making sure that the House of Commons functions more smoothly and that there’s less shenanigans from the opposition in committee will be really important,” she said.
What happens next?
As Menard pointed out, there could be more byelections to come — so even if the Liberals eke out a majority, they may not be able to keep it long.
Liberal MP Nate Erskine-Smith is exploring a run for the Ontario Liberal leadership and plans to vacate his seat in Beaches—East York to run in a provincial byelection. It’s been rumoured for months that North Vancouver—Capilano MP Jonathan Wilkinson may be looking for a diplomatic posting.
There have also been media reports that NDP MP Alexandre Boulerice is pondering a jump to Quebec provincial politics.
Floor-crossing rumours continue to circulate on Parliament Hill. In short, the numbers are still unstable.
Menard said a narrow majority government also presents a challenge for Carney, who would have to ensure his entire caucus — which now includes one former New Democrat and several former Tory MPs — is on the same page.
“You do not know how these people are going to react on an issue-to-issue basis,” he said.
What does all of this meant for the timing of the next election?
A majority government could stay in power for another three years. It could also call an early election.
Most major polls suggest the Liberals have a wide lead and Carney is significantly more popular than Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre.
Smith said that’s the kind of thing every government keeps its eye on as it weighs whether to send Canadians to the polls.
“Right now, no, there aren’t Canadians that are saying we need an election,” she said.
But if things are still uncertain geopolitically in the next few months, she said, “I think it’s something that isn’t off the table yet. It’s just not on tonight’s dinner table.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 21 2026.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Date: Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 6:01 PM
Subject: Re: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: <info@ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca
Cc: <Don.Monahan@legnb.ca>, <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, <Rob.Weir@gnb.ca>, <Richard.Bragdon@parl.gc.ca>, <mike.dawson@parl.gc.ca>, <michael.chong@parl.gc.ca>, <francois-philippe.champagne@
Pierre Poilievre Squares Off Against Mark Carney | Question Period | Mar 11
Canadian Capital Clips Liberal Prime Minister Mark Carney and Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre squared off during question period in the House of Commons this afternoon.
LIVE: Conservative MPs Square Off Against Carney's Ministers | Question Period | Mar 12
Canadian Capital Clips 12 Comments
From: Davies, Don - M.P.
Date: Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 3:09 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Methinks NDP interim Leader Don Davies should read his emails ASAP N'esy Pas?
To: David Amos
Liberal House leader ‘starting to worry’ about support for upcoming budget
Minister MacKinnon dismissing ‘ludicrous’ demands other parties have put forward for the budget
Liberal House leader Steve MacKinnon signalled Tuesday that he’s concerned the government’s budget might not get support from the opposition benches, while at the same time dismissing some demands other parties have laid out.
The Liberal government will need the co-operation of at least one other party in order to pass the budget, which is being tabled on Nov. 4. Because the budget is a confidence vote, Canadians could be facing another election if it doesn’t pass.
"When I see opposition parties ruling out the possibility of voting for the budget, that's starting to worry me," MacKinnon told reporters on Parliament Hill.
Liberal House leader worried about lack of support for budgetOn Monday, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre penned a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney saying he wants to see an “affordable budget” that includes broad tax cuts and keeping the deficit under $42 billion.
Meanwhile, the Bloc Québécois has said they have six key priorities for the budget including: an increase to the federal health transfer to the provinces, new infrastructure investments, an expansion of the rapid housing initiative, interest-free loans for first-time homebuyers and boosting Old Age Security (OAS) payments for those ages 65 to 75.
Despite raising concerns about getting support for the budget, MacKinnon dismissed both the Conservative and Bloc demands.
"We intend to present a plan to Canadians to deal with this very critical moment in our history, and what we're seeing is opposition parties — the Bloc Québécois, who without having even read the budget, eliminating the possibility that they'll support it — and Conservatives making just ludicrous demands,” he said Tuesday.
Up to government to get support: NDP
NDP interim Leader Don Davies fired back at MacKinnon’s comments, saying it's up to the government to gather support for its budget.
"The question of whether there is an election is entirely up to Mr. Carney. As a leader of a government with a minority in Parliament, it's up to him to craft a budget that can win the support of at least one opposition party. That's his job," Davies said during a press conference in Ottawa on Tuesday.
Davies says no discussions had with Liberals on exchanges for budget support"For Mr. MacKinnon to say he's worried, well that has me worried. Because the government should be reaching out to all the parties and working collaboratively to make sure that they can get enough votes to have the budget passed."
While the NDP caucus was reduced to only seven seats after April’s election, they still have enough sway to determine the outcome of a vote. The Liberals could pass the budget if New Democrats support it or abstain from the vote.
Davies met with Carney earlier this month to lay out his party’s priorities for the budget. He told reporters after the meeting that he wants to see “substantial investment” in jobs, health care and housing — though he didn’t list specific items.
The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) released a report last month forecasting that the government will post an annual deficit of $68.5 billion this year, up from $51.7 billion last year.
But that update does not include plans to incrementally ramp up defence spending to meet the updated NATO benchmark of five per cent of GDP by 2035, nor does it factor in Ottawa's announced plans to reduce public service spending over the next three years.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Senior writer
Darren Major is a senior writer for CBC's parliamentary bureau in Ottawa. He previously worked as a digital reporter for CBC Ottawa and a producer for CBC's Power & Politics. He holds a master's degree in journalism and a bachelor's degree in public affairs and policy management, both from Carleton University. He also holds master's degree in arts from Queen's University. He can be reached at darren.major@cbc.ca.
With files from The Canadian Press
Could Nov. 4 federal budget trigger an early election? | Power & Politics
| RE Poilievre blasts ‘despicable’ RCMP leadership, accuses Mounties of covering up for Trudeau |
| David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail. | Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 5:31 PM | |
To:
"pierre.poilievre" <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, "Sean.Fraser"
<Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>,
ps.ministerofpublicsafety- | ||
From: Davies, Don - M.P. <don.davies@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 5:50 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: RE Poilievre blasts ‘despicable’ RCMP leadership, accuses Mounties of covering up for Trudeau
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
*Please do not reply to this email*
Greetings!
I acknowledge receipt of your email. Thank you for taking the time to contact me and express your views.
Our office is open Mondays, Tuesday, Thursdays, and Fridays from 10am-4pm. We are closed Wednesdays for case processing.
While I read all correspondence, the volume of email we receive means that I am not able to respond immediately to every message. Every effort will be made to reply to you as soon as possible. Please note that in most cases, anonymous, cc’d or forwarded items will be read but will not receive a response.
If the information you have sent is about a concern that you have as a constituent, please make sure that you have given your full name, address and telephone number so my office is able to assist you efficiently. If you live outside Vancouver Kingsway please contact your own Member of Parliament for assistance.
You can ensure you are contacting the correct MP by entering your postal code at this website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/
Please be assured that all email sent to this office is treated as confidential.
Should you need further assistance, please contact my office at 604-775-6263.
Sincerely,
Don Davies, MP
Vancouver Kingsway
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 5:35 PM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Thank you for writing to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit au ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez
prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de
votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu
avec soin.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 5:36 PM
Subject: Réponse automatique : RE Poilievre blasts ‘despicable’ RCMP leadership, accuses Mounties of covering up for Trudeau
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
(Ceci est une réponse automatique)
(English follows)
Bonjour,
Nous avons bien reçu votre courriel et nous vous remercions d'avoir écrit à M. Yves-François Blanchet, député de Beloeil-Chambly et chef du Bloc Québécois.
Comme nous avons un volume important de courriels, il nous est impossible de répondre à tous individuellement. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel recevra toute l'attention nécessaire.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
L'équipe du député Yves-François Blanchet
Chef du Bloc Québécois
Thank you for your email. We will read it as soon as we can.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
From: Poilievre, Pierre - M.P. <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Wed, Mar 11, 2026 at 5:35 PM
Subject: Acknowledgement – Email Received / Accusé de réception – Courriel reçu
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
On behalf of the Hon. Pierre Poilievre, we would like to thank you for contacting the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Mr. Poilievre greatly values feedback and input from Canadians. We wish to inform you that the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition reads and reviews every e-mail we receive. Please note that this account receives a high volume of e-mails, and we endeavour to reply as quickly as possible.
If you are a constituent of Mr. Poilievre in the riding of Battle River - Crowfoot and you have an urgent matter to discuss, please contact his constituency office at:
Phone: 1-780-608-4600
Fax: 1-780-608-4603
Hon. Pierre Poilievre, M.P.
Battle River – Crowfoot
4945 50 Street
Camrose, Alberta T4V 1P9
Once again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition
______________________________
Au nom de l’honorable Pierre Poilievre, nous tenons à vous remercier d’avoir communiqué avec le Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle.
M. Poilievre accorde une grande importance aux commentaires et aux suggestions des Canadiens. Nous tenons à vous informer que le Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle lit et examine tous les courriels qu’il reçoit. Veuillez noter que ce compte reçoit un volume important de courriels et que nous nous efforçons d’y répondre le plus rapidement possible.
Si vous êtes un électeur de M. Poilievre dans la circonscription de Battle River - Crowfoot et que vous avez une question urgente à discuter, veuillez contacter son bureau de circonscription :
Téléphone :
Télécopieur :
L’honorable Pierre Poilievre, député
Battle River – Crowfoot
4945, 50 Street
Camrose (Alberta) T4V 1P9
Encore une fois, merci de votre message.
Veuillez agréer nos salutations distinguées,
Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle
Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 9:52 PM
Subject: RE: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
Dear David,
I acknowledge receipt of your email and voicemails. Thank you for your advocacy efforts, but we will be unable to collaborate.
Bill C-15 is expected to be read for a second time in the Senate tomorrow. It is possible that it becomes law this week.
Yours truly,
Joshua M. Juneau
Senior Counsel
tel (613) 236-2657 x201
fax (613) 236-7476MICHEL DRAPEAU LAW OFFICE / CABINET JURIDIQUE MICHEL DRAPEAU
This message is intended for the exclusive use of its addressee and may contain confidential information and be protected under solicitor-client privilege. Please advise if you wish us to use a mode of communication other than regular, unsecured e-mail in our communications with you.
Ce message est à l'usage exclusif de son destinataire et peut contenir des renseignements confidentiels et être protégé par le secret professionnel. Si vous désirez que nous communiquions avec vous par un autre moyen de transmission que le courrier électronique ordinaire non sécurisé, veuillez nous en aviser.
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
com>
Sent: March 9, 2026 9:01 AM
To: info@ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca; lucille.hodgins@ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca; ragingdissident@protonmail.com ; jasonlavigne@outlook.com; paulpalango@eastlink.ca; Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl. gc.ca; Chris.dEntremont@parl.gc.ca; pm@pm.gc.ca; pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca; Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl. gc.ca; don.davies@parl.gc.ca; elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca; ps.ministerofpublicsafety- ministredelasecuritepublique. sp@ps-sp.gc.ca; melanie.joly@ised-isde.gc.ca; david.myles@parl.gc.ca; fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@ canada.ca; Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca; Wayne.Long@parl.gc.ca; megan.mitton@gnb.ca; mcu@justice.gc.ca; malcolm.ruby@gowlingwlg.com; adam.bazak@gowlingwlg.com; karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca; david.hansen@justice.gc.ca; Adam.Kouri@justice.gc.ca; kbaert@kmlaw.ca; atanel@kmlaw.ca; daniel.wallace@mcinnescooper. com; Colonel-Maître® Michel W. Drapeau <mdrapeau@mdlo.ca>; Joshua M. Juneau <jjuneau@mdlo.ca>; bill@murphybattista.com; bespflug@murphybattista.com; andrew.lawton@parl.gc.ca; cathay.wagantall@parl.gc.ca; arnold.viersen@parl.gc.ca; fraser.tolmie@parl.gc.ca; blake.richards@parl.gc.ca; aaron.gunn@parl.gc.ca; JOHN.HERRON@gnb.ca; ottawanews@ctv.ca
Cc: Don.Monahan@legnb.ca; John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca; rob.moore@parl.gc.ca; Rob.Weir@gnb.ca; Richard.Bragdon@parl.gc.ca; mike.dawson@parl.gc.ca; michael.chong@parl.gc.ca; francois-philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca; news957@rogers.com; sheilagunnreid@gmail.com; News@nowmediainc.com; David.Akin@globalnews.ca; news@chco.tv; Newsroom@globeandmail.com; news@guelphtoday.com
Subject: Re: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
Methinks desperate politicians do desperate things N'esy Pas???
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Blogger <no-reply@blogger.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 9, 2026 at 8:49 AM
Subject: Your post titled "Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended" has been unpublished
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Hello,
As you may know, our Community Guidelines (https://blogger.com/go/
contentpolicy) describe the boundaries for what we allow-- and don't allow-- on Blogger. Your post titled "Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended" was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and have unpublished the URL https://davidraymondamos3. blogspot.com/2026/02/canada- is-breaking-its-sacred-oath- to.html , making it unavailable to blog readers. If you are interested in republishing the post, please update the content to adhere to Blogger's Community Guidelines. Once the content is updated, you may republish it at https://www.blogger.com/go/
appeal-post?blogId= 2464308071878322421&postId= 6023645691872615376 . This will trigger a review of the post. You may have the option to pursue your claims in court. If you have legal questions or wish to examine legal options that may be available to you, you may want to consult with your own legal counsel.
For more information, please review the following resources:
- Terms of Service: https://www.blogger.com/go/
terms - Blogger Community Guidelines: https://blogger.com/go/
contentpolicy Sincerely,
The Blogger Team
---------- Original message ---------
From: Minister of Finance / Ministre des Finances <minister-ministre@fin.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
The Department of Finance Canada acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence.
Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.
Le ministère des Finances Canada accuse réception de votre courriel.
Nous vous assurons que vos commentaires sont les bienvenus.
---------- Original message ---------
From: Ministerial Correspondence Unit - Justice Canada <mcu@justice.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:12 PM
Subject: Automatic Reply
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com Thank you for writing to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.
Due to the volume of correspondence addressed to the Minister, please note that there may be a delay in processing your email. Rest assured that your message will be carefully reviewed.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
-------------------
Merci d'avoir écrit au ministre de la Justice et procureur général du Canada.
En raison du volume de correspondance adressée au ministre, veuillez prendre note qu'il pourrait y avoir un retard dans le traitement de votre courriel. Nous tenons à vous assurer que votre message sera lu avec soin.Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
---------- Original message ---------
From: Blanchet, Yves-François - Député <Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:12 PM
Subject: Réponse automatique : Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
(Ceci est une réponse automatique)
(English follows)
Bonjour,
Nous avons bien reçu votre courriel et nous vous remercions d'avoir écrit à M. Yves-François Blanchet, député de Beloeil-Chambly et chef du Bloc Québécois.
Comme nous avons un volume important de courriels, il nous est impossible de répondre à tous individuellement. Soyez assuré(e) que votre courriel recevra toute l'attention nécessaire.
Nous ne répondons pas à la correspondance contenant un langage offensant.
L'équipe du député Yves-François Blanchet
Chef du Bloc Québécois
Thank you for your email. We will read it as soon as we can.
We do not respond to correspondence that contains offensive language.
---------- Original message ---------
From: Poilievre, Pierre - M.P. <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Acknowledgement – Email Received / Accusé de réception – Courriel reçu
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> On behalf of the Hon. Pierre Poilievre, we would like to thank you for contacting the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition.
Mr. Poilievre greatly values feedback and input from Canadians. We wish to inform you that the Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition reads and reviews every e-mail we receive. Please note that this account receives a high volume of e-mails, and we endeavour to reply as quickly as possible.
If you are a constituent of Mr. Poilievre in the riding of Battle River - Crowfoot and you have an urgent matter to discuss, please contact his constituency office at:
Phone: 1-780-608-4600
Fax: 1-780-608-4603
Hon. Pierre Poilievre, M.P.
Battle River – Crowfoot4945 50 Street
Camrose, Alberta T4V 1P9
Once again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
Office of the Leader of the Official Opposition______________________________
______________________________ __________________________ Au nom de l’honorable Pierre Poilievre, nous tenons à vous remercier d’avoir communiqué avec le Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle.
M. Poilievre accorde une grande importance aux commentaires et aux suggestions des Canadiens. Nous tenons à vous informer que le Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle lit et examine tous les courriels qu’il reçoit. Veuillez noter que ce compte reçoit un volume important de courriels et que nous nous efforçons d’y répondre le plus rapidement possible.
Si vous êtes un électeur de M. Poilievre dans la circonscription de Battle River - Crowfoot et que vous avez une question urgente à discuter, veuillez contacter son bureau de circonscription :
Téléphone :
1-780-608-4600 Télécopieur :
1-780-608-4603
L’honorable Pierre Poilievre, député
Battle River – Crowfoot4945, 50 Street
Camrose (Alberta) T4V 1P9
Encore une fois, merci de votre message.
Veuillez agréer nos salutations distinguées,
Bureau du chef de l’Opposition officielle
---------- Original message ---------
From: Moore, Rob - M.P. <Rob.Moore@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
*This is an automated response*
Thank you for contacting the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P. office. We appreciate the time you took to get in touch with our office.
If you did not already, please ensure to include your full contact details on your email and the appropriate staff will be able to action your request. We strive to ensure all constituent correspondence is responded to in a timely manner.
If your question or concern is time sensitive, please call our office: 506-832-4200.
Again, we thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and concerns.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Office of the Honourable Rob Moore, P.C., M.P.
Member of Parliament for Fundy Royal
---------- Original message ---------
From: Lawton, Andrew - M.P. <andrew.lawton@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Good day,
Thank you for contacting the office of MP Andrew Lawton.
To help us serve you as quickly as possible, please include your full name, address with postal code, and phone number if you haven’t already. Priority is given to residents of Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.
To find your MP, visit: ourcommons.ca/Members
Thank you,
Office of Andrew Lawton, MP
Elgin—St. Thomas—London SouthAndrewLawtonMP.ca
---------- Original message ---------
From: Chong, Michael - M.P. <michael.chong@parl.gc.ca>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:07 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Thanks very much for getting in touch with me!
This email is to acknowledge receipt of your message and to let you know that every incoming email is read and reviewed. A member of my Wellington-Halton Hills North team will be in touch with you shortly if follow-up is required.
Due to the high volume of email correspondence, priority is given to responding to residents of Wellington-Halton Hills North and to emails of a non-chain (or “forwards”) variety.
In your email, if you:
· have verified that you are a constituent by including your complete residential postal address and a phone number, a response will be provided in a timely manner.
· have not included your residential postal mailing address, please resend your email with your complete residential postal address and phone number, and a response will be forthcoming.
If you are not a constituent of Wellington Halton-Hills North, please contact your Member of Parliament. If you are unsure who your MP is, you can find them by searching your postal code at http://www.ourcommons.ca/en
Any constituents of Wellington-Halton Hills North who require urgent attention are encouraged to call the constituency office at 1-866-878-5556 (toll-free in riding). Please rest assured that any voicemails will be returned promptly.
Once again, thank you for your email.
The Hon. Michael Chong, M.P.
Wellington-Halton Hills North
toll free riding office:1-866-878-5556Ottawa office: 613-992-4179
E-mail: michael.chong@parl.gc.ca
Website : www.michaelchong.ca
THIS MESSAGE IS ONLY INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT(S) AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, PROPRIETARY AND/OR CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify me by return e-mail and delete this message from your system.
---------- Original message ---------
From: Singh, Karunjit (LNG-CAN) <karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:10 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com> Thank you for your email. I am out of office until March 9 and will not be checking email at this time. I will try to respond to you as soon as I can once I get back.
---------- Original message ---------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:03 PM
Subject: Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
To: <info@ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca>, <lucille.hodgins@ombudsman- veterans.gc.ca>, <ragingdissident@protonmail. com>, <jasonlavigne@outlook.com>, <paulpalango@eastlink.ca>, <Ginette.PetitpasTaylor@parl. gc.ca>, <Chris.dEntremont@parl.gc.ca>, <pm@pm.gc.ca>, <pierre.poilievre@parl.gc.ca>, <Yves-Francois.Blanchet@parl. gc.ca>, <don.davies@parl.gc.ca>, <elizabeth.may@parl.gc.ca>, <ps.ministerofpublicsafety- ministredelasecuritepublique. sp@ps-sp.gc.ca>, <melanie.joly@ised-isde.gc.ca> , <david.myles@parl.gc.ca>, <fin.minfinance-financemin. fin@canada.ca>, <Sean.Fraser@parl.gc.ca>, <Wayne.Long@parl.gc.ca>, <megan.mitton@gnb.ca>, <mcu@justice.gc.ca>, <malcolm.ruby@gowlingwlg.com>, <adam.bazak@gowlingwlg.com>, <karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca> , <david.hansen@justice.gc.ca>, <Adam.Kouri@justice.gc.ca>, <kbaert@kmlaw.ca>, <atanel@kmlaw.ca>, <daniel.wallace@mcinnescooper. com>, <Michel.Drapeau@mdlo.ca>, <Joshua.Juneau@mdlo.ca>, <bill@murphybattista.com>, <bespflug@murphybattista.com>, <andrew.lawton@parl.gc.ca>, <cathay.wagantall@parl.gc.ca>, <arnold.viersen@parl.gc.ca>, <fraser.tolmie@parl.gc.ca>, <blake.richards@parl.gc.ca>, <aaron.gunn@parl.gc.ca>, <JOHN.HERRON@gnb.ca>, <ottawanews@ctv.ca>
Cc: <Don.Monahan@legnb.ca>, <John.Williamson@parl.gc.ca>, <rob.moore@parl.gc.ca>, <Rob.Weir@gnb.ca>, <Richard.Bragdon@parl.gc.ca>, <mike.dawson@parl.gc.ca>, <michael.chong@parl.gc.ca>, <francois-philippe.champagne@parl.gc.ca>, <news957@rogers.com>, <sheilagunnreid@gmail.com>, <News@nowmediainc.com>, <David.Akin@globalnews.ca>, <news@chco.tv>, <Newsroom@globeandmail.com>, <news@guelphtoday.com>
On Sun, Mar 8, 2026 at 3:03 PM David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
com> wrote: Methinks legions of Veterans would appreciate somebody ethical checking my work before the Senate does its third reading of the Budget Implementation Act N'esy Pas???
https://davidraymondamos3.
blogspot.com/2026/02/canada- is-breaking-its-sacred-oath- to.html
Tuesday, 24 February 2026
Canada is breaking its 'sacred oath' to veterans if it passes the Budget Implementation Act unamended
Court adjourns veterans’ benefits class action pending outcome of proposed retroactive legislation
Law360 Canada (December 23, 2025, 3:09 PM EST) -- The Federal Court has adjourned a certification motion in a proposed class action challenging the practice of prorating certain indexation adjustments for veterans’ benefits pending the outcome of proposed legislation that could end the class action.
In St-Jean v. Canada, 2025 FC 2000, released on Dec. 18, Justice Russel Zinn concluded it was in the interests of justice to grant the requested adjournment rather than press on with the certification motion.
“I have reached this conclusion primarily on the basis that justice is better served in proceeding when it is known whether the provisions of Bill C-15 have received assent,” the judge wrote.
The plaintiff, André St-Jean, sought to represent a class of individuals who were affected by the practice of prorating certain indexation adjustments for certain financial benefits, including the earnings loss benefit (ELB), the retirement income security benefit (RISB) and the income replacement benefit (IRB), available to disabled veterans.
The lawsuit alleges that between April 2006 and April 2019, Canada adopted the practice of prorating the indexation of inputs on which benefits were calculated.
The plaintiff alleges the practice resulted in the putative class of more than 40,000 disabled veterans being paid less than the fully indexed benefits to which they were otherwise entitled based on annual adjustments reflecting increases in the consumer price index.
In April 2019, the Veterans Well-being Act and Veterans Well-being Regulations came into force and expressly forbade the practice.
On Nov. 18, 2025, the federal government tabled Bill C-15, which proposes to amend, with retroactive effect, provisions of the Regulations to specify that the first annual indexation adjustments to certain amounts used in the calculation of the ELB are to be prorated.
Canada sought an adjournment of the certification motion on the basis that the bill, if enacted, could have a determinative effect on the certification criteria, particularly on whether the claim discloses a reasonable cause of action.
Canada also submitted that the length of the requested adjournment would be relatively short, as the outcome of Bill C-15 is expected to become clear by April 2026.
The plaintiff opposed adjournment, arguing that it would be uniquely harmful to the putative class comprised of veterans of the Canadian Armed Forces who became mentally and/or physically disabled while serving Canada.
The plaintiff also submitted that Canada’s conduct in advancing Bill C-15 is aimed at thwarting the proposed class from exercising their existing rights and providing ex post facto legislative authority for the practice of prorating the benefits.
He further submitted that he intended to mount a challenge to the constitutionality of the proposed retroactive legislation if it becomes law.
Justice Zinn held that justice would be better served in proceeding when it is known whether the provisions of Bill C-15 have received assent.
“If it does receive assent, then the certification request appears to be dependent on the validity of the amendments and that will require a unique finding of the Court based on materials not presently before it,” the judge wrote.
He further noted that if the proposed amendments do not receive assent or are amended such that they have no impact on the action, the certification motion would have suffered only a slight delay, with little to no prejudice to either party.
The court granted Canada’s motion to adjourn the certification motion.
Counsel for the plaintiff, Malcolm Ruby of Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, said the government was seeking to retroactively give itself authority for conduct that lacked statutory authorization.
“I believe it’s the intention of the federal government to end the class action through the legislation,” Ruby told Law360 Canada.
Ruby added that the government is also attempting to shut down two other lawsuits through retroactive legislation: Estate of Gordon Allen and Stanley Broski v. His Majesty the King and Raymond White et al. v. His Majesty the King.
White et al. is a certified class action alleging that Veterans Affairs Canada miscalculated annual pension indexation by using the wrong comparators, contrary to statutory requirements, while the Estate of Gordon Allen and Stanley Broski concerns allegations that veterans who received long-term care benefits under the Veterans Health Care Regulations were overcharged for the cost of that care.
Ruby said retroactive legislation is rare, describing it as a “thermonuclear weapon” in litigation.
He added that if Bill C-15 is enacted, the plaintiff intends to argue that putative class members are being discriminated against on the basis of disability.
Adam Bazak of Gowling WLG (Canada) LLP, Angela Bespflug of Murphy Battista LLP and Donnaree Nygard of Nygard Legal also acted as counsel for the plaintiff.
Counsel for Canada were Laura Tausky, Asad Moten, Margaret Cormack and Adam Kouri of the Department of Justice Canada.
If you have any information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Karunjit Singh at karunjit.singh@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5859.
https://canada.justice.gc.ca/
eng/trans/transition/2025/p3. html
Re: Unfair Veterans-related Measures in Bill C-15, Budget 2025 Implementation Act
December 12, 2025
The Honourable Jill McKnight, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence
66 Slater Street, 16th Floor
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0P4Re: Unfair Veterans-related Measures in Bill C-15, Budget 2025 Implementation Act
Dear Minister McKnight,
After careful review, and after hearing many concerns from the Veteran community, I must point out the unfairness I believe will result from certain retroactive measures contained within the Budget 2025 Implementation Act (Bill C-15).
Contrary to what was originally intended in the Interpretation Act, sections 373-375 of Bill C-15 would retroactively redefine “province” to exclude the territories in the Veterans Health Care Regulations as it relates to Accommodations and Meals payment by some Veterans in long term care. In so doing, Veterans Affairs Canada would effectively legitimize its past overcharges to Veterans and nullify ongoing litigation aimed at securing reimbursement for affected Veterans.
It is inconceivable that the Department of Justice and Veterans Affairs Canada personnel who drafted the Veterans Health Care Regulations would have been unaware of the Interpretation Act that has for many decades prior to 1993 expressly defined “province” to include the territories. Indeed, the Department of Justice had published internal guidance that references the Interpretation Act in their 1995 “Guide to the Making of Federal Acts and Regulations”. Therefore, one must assume that the drafters understood that the word “province” in the Veterans Health Care Regulations was meant to include the territories and thus conclude that the Department made a mistake in not doing so when undertaking the Accommodations and Meals calculations.
I believe that using retroactive legislation to correct administrative errors is both inappropriate and unfair and undermines confidence in government decision-making, sets a troubling precedent, and denies justice to those who served our country. Normally, retroactive provisions are limited to changes in legislation or regulations only back to the date of a formal government announcement of such intended change; for example, a change in tax rules announced in a budget and made retroactive in a budget implementation act to the date of the budget announcement. In this case, however, retroactivity of almost 30 years is extraordinary; the amendments proposed in Bill C-15 should be prospective only.
Ultimately, it is clear to the Veteran community that Bill C-15 sections 373-375 are meant solely to correct an error made by the Department and to deny them compensation for the overcharge. VAC already faces growing reputational backlash over the manner in which it communicates with Canada’s Veterans, their families and Survivors. I fear this retroactivity measure, if enacted, will only increase the deep distrust in Veterans Affairs Canada that, sadly, I hear about far too often.
On behalf of our most elderly and disabled Veterans who would be unfairly and disproportionately affected by these retroactive amendments, I would ask that they be removed from Bill C-15. Beyond that, I believe acknowledging the error and making whole those Veterans who were affected would be a step in the right direction towards regaining the trust of this community.
Sincerely,
Colonel (Ret’d) Nishika Jardine, CD
Veterans Ombud
https://ombudsman-veterans.
gc.ca/en/contact-us Contact Us
We are here to assist when you feel you have been treated unfairly by Veterans Affairs Canada. We know you may be frustrated. But we cannot accept discriminatory, abusive or inappropriate language when we are communicating. Your respectful interaction with us helps us to help you.
Submit a Complaint
If you want to submit a complaint, please use our complaint form. It's the best and safest way to send us your information. We do not accept complaints by email.
You can also call us: Telephone (toll-free): 1-877-330-4343 or TTY: 1-833-902-9399
OR reach us by mail: Office of the Veterans Ombud, P.O. Box 66 Charlottetown, PE C1A 7K2
What to expect when you contact our office
Find out more: what to expect when you contact the Veterans OmbudGeneral Questions
If you have a general question about our office or what we do, you can email us at info@ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca.
Please don’t send complaints or personal information to this email.Media Inquiries
Lucille Hodgins
1-613-943-7884
lucille.hodgins@ombudsman-
veterans.gc.ca Media Relations Advisor, OVO Communications
Office hours
Monday to Friday, except holidays
- 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. (Atlantic)
---------- Original message ---------
From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Date: Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 1:29 PM
Subject: Delivery Status Notification (Failure)
To: <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.com>
Message blocked
Your message to lucille.hodgins@ombudsman-
veterans.gc.ca has been blocked. See technical details below for more information. ---------- Original message ---------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos333@gmail.
com>
Date: Sat, Mar 7, 2026 at 1:28 PM
Subject: Fwd: Paul Vickery, senior general counsel for the federal Department of Justice, called the $80 million sum unreasonable. He said there is strong public interest in cutting the bill down.
To: <lucille.hodgins@ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca>, <complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>, <Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp- grc.gc.ca>, <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>
"Counsel fees are going to be closely scrutinized here, both by the
claimant community and the broader Canadian public," Vickery said
another mouthfull> From: magicJack <voicemail@notify.magicjack.
com>
> Subject: New VM (21) - 0:08 minutes in your magicJack mailbox from "PETER MILLIKEN" <6134534040>
> To: "DAVID AMOS"
> Date: Friday, December 5, 2014, 2:14 PM
> Dear magicJack User:
>
> You received a new 0:08 minutes voicemail message, on
> Friday, December 05, 2014 at 04:14:22 PM in mailbox
> 9028000369 from "PETER MILLIKEN"
> <6134534040>.
>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 15:18:32 -0700
Subject: RE Veterans and litigation Mr Vickery you and the lawyer
Petey Baby Milliken must remember Mean Old Me taking up my concerns
with Parliamentians is many countries years ago EH??
To: paul.vickery@iustice.gc.ca, Sarah.Gossin@iustice.gc.ca, Mackap
<Mackap@parl.gc.ca>, "peter.mackay" <peter.mackay@justice.gc.ca>,
travis.henderson@justice.gc.ca, David.Raymond@iustice.gc.ca,
peter.driscoll@mcinnescooper.
com, "david.hansen"
<david.hansen@justice.gc.ca>, neil.robinson@vac-acc.gc.ca,
dmanuge@eastlink.ca, 'Walter.Natynczyk@vac-acc.gc.ca,
news@hilltimes.com, "Jacques.Poitras" <Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca>,
"nick.moore" <nick.moore@bellmedia.ca>
Cc: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>, pmilliken@cswan.com,
veterans@millerthomson.com, jim@equitassociety.ca,
lucille.hodgins@ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca
For the record I like and respect Ms Hodgins
Office of the Veterans Ombudsman
Lucille Hodgins, Communications Advisor
613-943-7884
Cell: 613-894-6271
lucille.hodgins@ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca
www.ombudsman-veterans.gc.ca
..
http://www.commonlaw.uottawa.ca/index.php?option=com_ contact&task=view&contact_id= 513&Itemid=286
http://www.advocates.ca/new/about-the-society/officers- and-directors/paul-vickery. html
Paul B. Vickery
Department of Justice
Tel: 613.670.6317
Email: paul.vickery@justice.gc.ca
Assistant Sarah gossin
1 613 288 5075
http://www.canadianlawlist.com/listingdetail/contact/ travis-a-henderson-643424/
Travis A. Henderson Counsel
Called to the bar: 2009 (ON)
Justice Canada
Mgmt. of Class Actions & Mass Litigation Unit
50 O'Connor St.
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
Phone: 613-670-6374
Fax: 613-941-5879
Email: travis.henderson@justice.gc.ca
Assistant David Raymond (WOW want a coincidence or what?)
You can bet I called that young man.at
613 670 6369
http://www.equitassociety.ca/advisory-council.html#Milliken
http://cswan.com/lawyers/peter-milliken/
Hon. Peter Milliken, P.C.
613-546-8085
pmilliken@cswan.com
"The lawsuit was filed in fall 2012 by the group that claims the New
Veterans Charter is unconstitutional and violates the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. It was approved by a unanimous vote of Parliament
in 2006 and amended in 2011 as a result of public outcry.
Current and former Canadian Forces members are appalled that the
lifetime disability pension for disabled soldiers has been replaced by
lump-sum payments.
Inside court, government lawyer Paul Vickery told a three-judge panel
the appeal was necessary because the soldiers’ claims could negatively
impact fundamental democratic principles.
He told court that while the government readily acknowledges the great
value and sacrifice of the soldiers, Parliament is the “only
appropriate forum” for resolving the claims made in the lawsuit.
“The appeal which the attorney general brings before you is not
brought out of any lack of appreciation of those services,” Vickery
said.
A second federal lawyer then attacked the plaintiffs’ main argument
that they deserve benefits in line with the previous regime, the
Pension Act, based on historical promises. He did not dispute that the
new scheme is “less generous.”
Your boss Petey Baby MacKay must emember this video EH?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vugUalUO8YY&list= UUy8EcN1vBqTMe8fjF6mKD6g
or this info
January 30, 2007
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr. David Amos
Dear Mr. Amos:
This will acknowledge receipt of a copy of your e-mail of December 29,
2006 to Corporal Warren McBeath of the RCMP.
Because of the nature of the allegations made in your message, I have
taken the measure of forwarding a copy to Assistant Commissioner Steve
Graham of the RCMP °J" Division in Fredericton.
Sincerely,
Honourable Michael B. Murphy
Minister of Health
CM/cb
Warren McBeath warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca wrote:
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 17:34:53 -0500
From: "Warren McBeath" warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
To: kilgoursite@ca.inter.net, MichaelB.Murphy@gnb.ca,
nada.sarkis@gnb.ca, wally.stiles@gnb.ca, dwatch@web.net,
motomaniac_02186@yahoo.com
CC: ottawa@chuckstrahl.com, riding@chuckstrahl.com,
John.Foran@gnb.ca, Oda.B@parl.gc.ca,
"Bev BUSSON" bev.busson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca,
"Paul Dube" PAUL.DUBE@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
Subject: Re: Remember me Kilgour? Landslide Annie McLellan has
forgotten me but the crooks within the RCMP have n
Dear Mr. Amos,
Thank you for your follow up e-mail to me today. I was on days off
over the holidays and returned to work this evening. Rest assured I
was not ignoring or procrastinating to respond to your concerns.
As your attachment sent today refers from Premier Graham, our position
is clear on your dead calf issue: Our forensic labs do not process
testing on animals in cases such as yours, they are referred to the
Atlantic Veterinary College in Charlottetown who can provide these
services. If you do not choose to utilize their expertise in this
instance, then that is your decision and nothing more can be done.
As for your other concerns regarding the US Government, false
imprisonment and Federal Court Dates in the US, etc... it is clear
that Federal authorities are aware of your concerns both in Canada and
the US. These issues do not fall into the purvue of Detachment
policing in Petitcodiac, NB.
It was indeed an interesting and informative conversation we had on
December 23rd, and I wish you well in all of your future endeavors.
Sincerely,
Warren McBeath, Cpl.
GRC Caledonia RCMP
Traffic Services NCO
Ph: (506) 387-2222
Fax: (506) 387-4622
E-mail warren.mcbeath@rcmp-grc.gc.ca
>> http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2013/10/re-glen- greenwald-and-brazilian.html
>>
>> ---------- Original message ----------
>> From: PCC Complaints <complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca>
>> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:59:52 +0000
>> Subject: The Commission for Public Complaints against RCMP - #2013-2824
>> To: "motomaniac333@gmail.com" <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear Mr. Amos:
>>
>> This is further to your recent communications with the Commission.
>> From September 18, 2013 to the present, our office has received 6
>> electronic messages from you. Many of these e-mails are not related to
>> RCMP conduct.
>>
>> On October 1, 2013, you called our office and spoke with an Intake
>> Officer. You wished to enquire about three complaint files. When the
>> Intake Officer attempted to inform you that you have three enquiry
>> files with the Commission, you became agitated and insisted otherwise.
>> You raised your voice and spoke over the Intake Officer. You then
>> demanded the name of the Intake Officer, and subsequently yelled "see
>> you in federal court" and hung up the telephone line.
>>
>> As a reminder, we request that all future correspondence with our
>> office must be courteous in tone and that you are respectful of the
>> requests that are made of you. While it is clearly not the intention
>> of the Commission to prevent you from making complaints against
>> members of the RCMP, your recent emails and telephone call have been
>> unproductive for both you and for Commission staff. In the future, we
>> request that all communication with our office be respectful in
>> language and related to our mandate. In the event that this request
>> is not respected, the Commission will consider imposing restrictions
>> on how you may communicate with our office.
>>
>> Should you have a complaint about a specific RCMP member surrounding a
>> specific incident, I invite you to visit the Commission's website
>> (www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca<http://www.cpc-cpp.gc.ca>) to submit an online
>> complaint, rather than to send an email that is difficult to follow or
>> a copy of a letter you have sent to many others. The complaint form
>> will guide you through the information required that will enable the
>> Commission to process your complaint. Should you have difficulty in
>> accessing the complaint form and wish to have one sent to you, you may
>> provide your mailing address and a form will be mailed to you via
>> Canada Post.
>>
>> I would also invite you to send your correspondence regarding any new
>> or existing complaints (quoting the appropriate Commission file
>> number) by letter mail to:
>>
>> Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP
>> National Intake Office
>> PO Box 88689
>> Surrey, BC V3W 0X1
>>
>> Yours truly,
>>
>> Günther Schönfeldt
>> Intake Officer / Agent d'information de liaison
>> Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP /
>> Commission des plaintes du public contre la Gendarmerie royale du Canada
>> Tel/Tél : 1-800-665-6878 | Fax/Téléc : (604) 501-4095
>> complaints@cpc-cpp.gc.ca<mailto:complaints@cpc-cpp.gc. ca>
>>
>> [Description: Description: cid:image001.jpg@01CCF6DA.65AE7FE0]
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: !enquiries <enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk>
>> Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2013 10:56:26 +0100
>> Subject: IPCC Reference: 2013/015918
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> Dear Mr Amos
>>
>> I acknowledge receipt of 4 emails at the Independent Police Complaints
>> Commission (IPCC) earlier today.
>>
>> I note from our records that you have been advised on the IPCC remit,
>> as well as spoken with one of my colleagues in the customer contact
>> team. It remains unclear from your emails what your complaint against
>> the police is. This may be because you refer to a number of other
>> organisations, or matters outside of the IPCC's remit.
>>
>> If you wish to make a complaint against the police you should provide
>> these details to either the IPCC or the relevant police force's
>> professional standards department (PSD).
>>
>> The IPCC does not investigate allegations of crime(s) committed by
>> members of the public, nor can we direct a police force to commence an
>> investigation into such.
>>
>> If you have any queries about the IPCC's remit or the complaints
>> process please contact us. However, emails to the IPCC that fall
>> outside of our remit will be read and filed, but may not be responded
>> to.
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Elly Goodman
>> Customer Contact Adviser
>> Independent Police Complaints Commission
>> Tel: 0300 020 0096
>> Email: enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk
>>
>>
>> The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government
>> Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in
>> partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) On
>> leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free.
>> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored
>> and/or recorded for legal purposes.
>>
>>
>> Talk about pissing a guy off. EH Ian McPhail? What planet do CROWN's
>> bureaucrats come from anyway?
>>
>> Need I say BULLSHIT once again??? The other CROWN Corp commonly know
>> as the CBC often puts that word over our airwaves so that can't be
>> offensive. That said I bet the call was recorded If so I demand a copy
>> ASAP. Next time I call I will record the call myself.
>>
>> I must ask did the oh so silent boss Ian MacPhail and his buddy Bob
>> Paulson about the Yankee wiretap tapes being evidence of MURDER?
>> Better check the Canadian Ciminal Code about assisting in the cover up
>> of such crimes EH?
>>
>> As for the call I remember it like it was yesterday. Howcome it took
>> Günther Schönfeldt three weeks to dream up the same sort of response I
>> got in 2007??? The first thing I did was ask for him and the woman
>> claimed he was not avaible and offered to help. She started out quite
>> nice but as soon as she admited that there was only a faxed complaint
>> in November of 2003 and that it did not warrant an answer I told her
>> to look some more. She got fairly argumentive and did not wish to
>> discuss the complaint I sent in August of 2005 (It appeared to me that
>> she read something in my file) I gave up and asked her name when she
>> got to snarky and she refused to give other than "Nora" So I said Cya
>> in Federal Court and hung up. The I sent your buddy Bob Paulson and
>> YOU Ian McPhail a Motherload of emails but I did only sent your
>> mindless bureaucrats six that were largely unrelated if they did not
>> know how to read deep.
>>
>> However your Commission should not deny that I argued with its former
>> lawyer/boss Shirley Heafey about the aforesaid compliant in 2005
>> within emails sent to many Parliamentarians months for a I ran for a
>> sent Parliament again and she was replaced by the lawyer Paul Kennedy.
>> (The lawyer Heafey and your Commission always denied that complaint
>> existed until your office sent me a similar bullshit email after Mike
>> Murphy a former Minister of Health and later another former Attorney
>> General asked Deputy Commissioner Steve Graham to investigate my
>> concerns.
>>
>> In return the Graham got transferred to Nova Scotia and RCMP falsely
>> arrested REMEMBER Stevey Boy Harper?
>>
>> As I said Cya'll in Federal Court
>>
>> Veritas Vincit
>> David Raymond Amos
>> 1 902 800 0369
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/ PoliceSurveilanceWiretapTape13 9
>>
>> http://www.archive.org/details/ FedsUsTreasuryDeptRcmpEtc
>>
>> http://davidamos.blogspot.com/
>>
>> FEDERAL EXPRES February 7, 2006
>> Senator Arlen Specter
>> United States Senate
>> Committee on the Judiciary
>> 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
>> Washington, DC 20510
>>
>> Dear Mr. Specter:
>>
>> I have been asked to forward the enclosed tapes to you from a man
>> named, David Amos, a Canadian citizen, in connection with the matters
>> raised in the attached letter. Mr. Amos has represented to me that
>> these are illegal FBI wire tap tapes. I believe Mr. Amos has been in
>> contact with you about this previously.
>>
>> Very truly yours,
>> Barry A. Bachrach
>> Direct telephone: (508) 926-3403
>> Direct facsimile: (508) 929-3003
>> Email: bbachrach@bowditch.com
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Lisa Porteous <lporteous@kleinlyons.com>
>> Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 14:46:22 +0000
>> Subject: RCMP
>> To: David Amos <motomaniac333@gmail.com>
>>
>> David,
>>
>> Thank you for your email inquiring about our class action against the
>> RCMP. As you may know, the Notice of Claim was filed in the British
>> Columbia Supreme Court on March 27, 2012. The lawsuit has been
>> brought by former RCMP constable Janet Merlo on behalf of female RCMP
>> members. Unfortunately, we cannot assist you with your claim.
>>
>> We recommend that you contact Mr. Barry Carter of Mair Jensen Blair
>> LLP to discuss any claim you may have against the RCMP for harassment.
>> His contact information is as follows:
>>
>> Mr. Barry Carter
>> Mair Jensen Blair LLP
>> 1380-885 W. Georgia Street
>> Vancouver, BC V6C 3E8
>> Phone: 604-682-6299
>> Fax 1-604-374-6992
>>
>> This is not intended to be an opinion concerning the merits of your
>> case. In declining to represent you, we are not expressing an opinion
>> as to whether you should take further action in this matter.
>>
>> You should be aware that there may be strict time limitations within
>> which you must act in order to protect your rights. Failure to begin
>> your lawsuit by filing an action within the required time may mean
>> that you could be barred forever from pursuing a claim. Therefore, you
>> should immediately contact another lawyer ( as indicated above) to
>> obtain legal advice/representation.
>>
>> Thank you again for considering our firm.
>>
>> Yours truly,
>>
>> Lisa Porteous
>> Case Manager/Paralegal
>>
>> lporteous@kleinlyons.com
>> www.kleinlyons.com
>>
>> KLEIN * LYONS
>> Suite 400-1385 West 8th Avenue
>> Vancouver BC V6H 3V9 Canada
>> Office 604.874.7171
>> Fax 604.874.7180
>> Direct 604.714.6533
>>
>> This email is confidential and may be protected by solicitor-client
>> privilege. It is intended only for the use of the person to whom it is
>> addressed. Any distribution, copying or other use by anyone else is
>> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
>> telephone us immediately and destroy this e-mail.
>>
>> üPlease consider the environment before printing this email.
Perhaps Mr Vickery should Google his name and mine to find such things as this
http://thedavidamosrant.blogspot.ca/2012/12/a-little- more-deja-vu-for-grant.html
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:41:52 -0400
Subject: We just talked Mr. Vickery
To: paul.vickery@iustice.gc.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Amos <david.raymond.amos@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:06:57 -0400
Subject: we are talking
To: ministre@justice.gouv.qc.ca
Cc: rdeubelbeiss@justice.gouv.qc.ca
Éric-Antoine Ménard
Vice President
As Vice President and head of NorthStar’s Quebec operations, Éric-Antoine Ménard advises clients on the complex intersection of government, policy, and public opinion from the firm’s Montreal office. Drawing on nearly a decade as a senior staffer in the Canadian Parliament, he brings deep strategic insight into government processes and public affairs on Parliament Hill. A trained lawyer, he offers a sophisticated understanding of parliamentary dynamics, Quebec politics, and federal–provincial relations. His work is grounded in a deep grasp of what drives public opinion in Quebec and how the province’s distinct political culture shapes—and is shaped by—both provincial decision-making and federal strategy.
Before joining NorthStar, Éric-Antoine served as Chief of Staff in the Office of the Government Representative in the Senate. In this role, he helped guide nearly 200 government bills to Royal Assent across four Parliaments and two Prime Ministers—giving him a level of insight into the day-to-day workings of Parliament that is rare in the industry. Known for his ability to build consensus and understand what motivates parliamentarians, he was also a driving force behind reforms that made the Senate more independent and less partisan.
Earlier in his career, Éric-Antoine practiced law at Norton Rose Fulbright, where he focused on constitutional law, investor-State dispute settlement, civil litigation, and cross-border disputes. This combination of legal expertise and political acumen makes him a trusted advisor for clients navigating complex regulatory and legislative challenges.
Éric-Antoine is a member of the Quebec Bar, fully fluent in English and French, and has working knowledge of Spanish and Catalan. He holds a law degree from Université de Montréal and a degree in international development from McGill University.
Ottawa, ON K1P 5N2
| Chief of Staff,
Senate, Government Representative in the Senate |
August 2019 to September 2025 | |
|
Deputy Chief of Staff
Senate, Government Representative in the Senate |
October 2018 to August 2019 | |
|
Director of policy
Senate, Government Representative in the Senate |
June 2016 to September 2018 | |
|
Political Analyst
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Department for International Cooperation and Parliamentary Research |
2007 | |
|
Information and Media Surveillance Officer Canadian International Development Agency, Communications 2006 |
As one of Bluesky Strategy Group’s co-founders, Tim brings his network and over thirty years of strategic communications, political, federal and provincial government-related skills, and experience to our client files. His work in the energy, aerospace and defence procurement, healthcare, financial services and transportation sectors links our clients to the thinking and the decision-making processes in government.
His understanding of the strategic communications and decision-making environment comes from his time working as a political staffer in the offices of both the Minister of International Trade and the Deputy Prime Minister, and as a public servant working in the Privy Council Office, Federal-Provincial Relations Office, Employment and Immigration, the Senate of Canada, and the Electronic Commerce Task Force (Industry Canada).
In 2006, Tim co-founded Canada 2020, which has become Canada’s leading independent, progressive think tank, hosting over a hundred events that are dedicated to the debate and discussion of issues related to the strategic public policy role of the federal government.
Tim’s client work has included: Pembina Pipeline, Pathways Alliance, Air Products, Cedar LNG, Chinook Pathways, First Nations Major Projects Coalition, Power Corporation, Canada Life, Graymont, Leonardo Helicopters, Bombardier, Canadian Petroleum Producer’s Association, and LiUNA!.
No comments:
Post a Comment