The House of Commons will have resumed sitting as this reaches you. As we get underway with the work of the House in 2026, I take this opportunity to summarize major pieces of legislation that are either currently in process before the House or that passed during 2025.
In accordance with my commitment to provide balanced commentary to you, I will outline some of the key parameters of each bill, a few things that I think are positive about it and a few points requiring further work or scrutiny in the House.
On the whole, 2025 was notable for the limited amount of legislation introduced in the House of Commons. To illustrate, there were only 18 Government bills introduced in the House of Commons in 2025. Of course, after the suspension of Parliament (via prorogation on January 6 at the request of then-Prime Minister Trudeau), the House did not resume sitting until after the April 28 General Election: the first session of the 45th Parliament opened on May 26, 2025. Thus 2025 saw a much-reduced number of sitting days for the House.
Border Security and Cyber Security
The Government introduced legislation to deal with a number of facets of national security – including border security and cyber security. The hallmark piece of legislation was the Government’s first substantive bill tabled in the House – C-2, the Strong Borders Act, which was introduced in early June. C-2 attempts to enhance border security in Canada. Certainly, part of this legislation was drafted to appease concerns from the US Government that our border security efforts are inadequate.
In general, the legislation seeks to:
- make it easier for the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) to conduct searches of bridges, tunnels, railways, airports, and docks by compelling owners of these facilities to allow access to them.
- place a time limit on the advancement of asylum and refugee claims by those entering Canada. The purpose of this element is to support a timelier resolution of immigration matters by removing asylum as an option to extend the stay of someone whose other applications have been denied by authorities.
- give law enforcement greater access to internet subscriber information. While the content an internet user accesses is not subject to disclosure, information such as the subscriber’s IP address and service address could be provided to law enforcement if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has or is being committed. Currently, law enforcement must obtain a warrant to obtain IP addresses and service addresses. Similar provisions would also allow warrantless searches of physical mail. This provision is one of the most challenging in the bill. On one hand, in today’s technologically connected society, the information being made accessible supports law enforcement in acting quickly (such as in cases of child abductions). On the other hand, it certainly reduces user privacy. If the Bill were to pass in its current form there would be a long road of litigation ahead to address the very reasonable civil liberty concerns within it.
- make it an offense for businesses or charities to accept payments or donations of cash in amounts of $10,000 or more. While it is difficult to imagine a large number of legitimate circumstances where someone would pay a business or a charity $10,000 in cold, hard, cash, many of you have questioned whether it is necessary to outright ban this type of transaction, or if a reporting and compliance mechanism may be more appropriate. For example, chartered banks are presently required to report any cash transaction valued at $10,000 or more to the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC). A similar requirement could be created for businesses and charities if it is clear that large cash transactions are a problem that needs a solution.
C-2 was the subject of extensive debate in the House of Commons, particularly on the section respecting warrantless access for law enforcement. Many of you wrote to me with serious concerns about the privacy implications – rightfully so. As a result of the resistance to C-2, the Government opted to introduce a new bill containing only the less contentious parts of C-2 – Bill C-12. C-12 includes only the provisions around border security and the statute of limitations on some immigration matters. At the time of writing, the Government has not abandoned C-2 and has suggested they will attempt to pass it later in the legislative cycle.
Bill C-8 is the second of the Government’s efforts respecting national security. C-8 deals with cybersecurity. It would give government sweeping control of the setup of telecommunications providers’ networks. It would also compel organizations that are federally regulated and manage vital elements of our communications networks to have comprehensive cybersecurity policies and to report breaches to government more quickly. The most significant concern with C-8 relates to the introduction of “cybersecurity directives” – which are government orders to telecommunication providers that would remain secret. Taken together with the warrantless access to subscriber data proposed in C-2, we remain deeply concerned that these provisions give government too much unchecked power.
We feel that while the intent of improving cyber security is important, many specific provisions of these 2 bills are highly problematic and need to be addressed through a line-by-line review of the legislation in committee and through significant amendment. We will see how willing the Government is to negotiate as the bills moves forward.
Citizenship Requirement Changes
Bill C-3, which is a reintroduction of a bill that died in the previous Parliament, attempts to address a ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which declared that, in some circumstances, the first-generation limit to automatic Canadian citizenship for those born outside of Canada was unconstitutional. There are cases where this first-generation limit has placed people with undeniable ties to Canada into legal limbo, and at the mercy of a citizenship process that has many requirements and can be very lengthy.
It is important that citizenship is not taken lightly, nor handed out lightly. My colleague, Greg McLean, the member for Calgary Centre, recently wrote that “Canadian citizenship is a privilege, not a convenience. It’s a bond to this country, built on shared values and responsibilities. Bill C-3 threatens to erode that bond.” I agree with his assessment. In the rare circumstances where the generational limit has circumstantially affected the granting of citizenship to someone whose ties to Canada are obvious, the Minister has the authority to exercise discretion and grant citizenship. In my view, that discretion is sufficient to address the matter raised by the Court and C-3 goes too far in allowing individuals many generations removed from Canada and with no connections to Canada other than a distant genealogical link to claim Canadian citizenship and all of its benefits.
This bill passed the House and the Senate and received royal assent in late November.
Major Projects Office and Interprovincial Trade/Labour Mobility
Bill C-5, which passed in the House of Commons and Senate and received royal assent in late June just before the House rose for summer, has 2 major parts. First, through the Building Canada Act, it provides the Federal Government with the ability to designate projects to be “in the national interest” and allow for the exercise of discretion on regulatory or other approval hurdles such projects may face. It also enacts the Free Trade and Labour Mobility in Canada Act, which seeks to increase interprovincial free trade and labour mobility, a generally laudable goal.
Conservative MPs voted with the Government to pass Bill C-5 on the basis that a small step forward is better than none at all. This legislation provides federal cabinet with significant power to fast-track projects they deem to be “in the national interest”. The fact that a fast-track around the current regulatory environment is necessary makes clear that the current framework is untenable. The better solution is to fix the framework and not just put a work-around in place for projects that politicians deem to be worthy of special treatment.
Many private sector projects have been pursued diligently for years, and proponents have spent significant private dollars, without regulatory certainty. Increasingly, however, the private sector has looked outside of Canada for investment opportunities because of the negative business climate in Canada. We must strike a better and more practical balance in promoting resource development while protecting the environment and involving all communities affected by developments in their planning and approval, as well as their construction and operation. Most importantly, we must revive our ability to actually take action in Canada and not be simply placated with announcements and press conferences that do not result in action.
At this point, the Major Projects Office has been initiated here in Calgary and is being staffed. There have been a few projects announced, including ones related to LNG, most of which were already well on their way to completion. At time of writing, none of the initially announced projects actually needed to be declared “in the national interest” to proceed.
Budget Implementation
Many of you will have received my initial take on the 2026-2027 federal budget proposal via email or attended my Town Hall on the budget in November. Some elements of the budget have already passed in Bill C-4, and the balance of them are contained in an omnibus bill, C-15, which was introduced in late November.
The biggest takeaways from the federal budget are:
- the annual deficit is projected to be between $57 and $78 billion CAD over the next four years.
- gross domestic product is forecast to have only anemic growth: around 1% for the next few years – far below historic norms of 2-3%.
Reductions in spending:
- efforts to reduce the public service headcount by around 10% in the next three years. The federal public service has grown by roughly 40% over the past decade.
- a “Comprehensive Expenditure Review” is to be undertaken where most departments have to find 15% in spending reductions (some departments are exempt, as are transfers to provinces and individuals).
- change to pension calculations for former RCMP members to match the remainder of the public service (approximate savings $5.8 billion).
- reduction in the per gram subsidy for medical cannabis prescribed to veterans and former RCMP members (approximate savings $4.4 billion).
New spending:
- $51 billion fund over 10 years for local infrastructure (housing, roads, water/wastewater and health facilities)
- $81.8 billion fund over 5 years for national defense
- $13.1 billion fund over 5 years to build homes ($1 billion for below market housing)
- $2 billion over 5 years for strategic investments in critical minerals extraction
Governments have run deficits in the past to provide stimulus to our economy in challenging times. That was the case during the financial crisis of 2008, and the deficits incurred allowed us to come through the crisis far more quickly than other G7 countries. The argument was again made during the COVID-19 pandemic in order to support those who had lost their jobs, and many agree that government action was necessary, if not the extremes of spending that took place.
Deficit spending, however, cannot be limitless. At some point, fiscal accountability, debt repayment and a return to balance has to be the path forward. There is no sign that Prime Minister Carney shares this view.
Our opposition to this budget was not a foregone conclusion. We provided to The Government a list of items for inclusion in the budget that would have secured our support. We have also been open to negotiation. We have voted with the Government on other matters, such as Bill C-5. However, The Government decided that negotiation with the opposition parties was not the approach they wanted to take with their budget.
Combatting Hate
Bill C-9, the Combatting Hate Act, seeks to improve the tools that prosecutors and police have when dealing with hate speech or hate crimes. Many constituents would likely agree that there has been an escalation in hate-related incidents over the past number of years and that steps need to be taken.
The challenge with this bill is how it balances freedom of speech with criminal promotion of hate. While we agree that many groups are in need of greater protection against hate, we are concerned that a number of the definitions are vague and open to consequences (whether intentional or unintentional).
C-9 was the subject of much dispute at the Justice Committee as Conservatives dug in to resist the removal of the current exemption in the Criminal Code from hate speech prosecution if the speech is based on good faith interpretation of a religious text (the “good faith religious defence”). My colleague Roman Baber, the member for York Centre, forcefully made the argument that stripping the religious defence out of Canadian law was more likely to criminalize faith than combat hate (see John Ivison’s article on Baber’s work published in the National Post on December 11). The Justice Committee hearings on C-9 were suspended in mid-December, and the outcome once Parliament and committee meetings resume is uncertain.
Bail Reform
We are all aware of the general uptick of crime in our communities. Bail reform has long been on the agenda of most parties within the House of Commons. The Government has tried to address bail reform with Bill C-14, an Act which makes a couple of key legal changes to bail procedure:
- the “principle of restraint” currently contained in the Criminal Code requires courts to release persons charged with offences on the least onerous conditions. C-14 clarifies that the principle does not mandate release and that an accused should not be released if their detention is justified.
- courts would now have to consider the number or seriousness of any outstanding charges an accused has against them when deciding whether to grant bail.
- bail hearings usually place the onus on the Crown Prosecution to demonstrate that an accused should not be released. This onus is reversed in some circumstances which include serious offense recidivism, use of firearms, intimate partner violence, terrorism, national security and drug trafficking. C-14 proposes to add additional circumstances where onus would be reversed, including: violent auto theft, break and enter of a home, trafficking and smuggling, assault, violent extortion and a general reverse onus for any person charged with an offense that was violent or incorporates a weapon in the last 10 years.
We believe that the above is a start in terms of bail reform, however, we feel the law does not go far enough and will seek to strengthen its provisions before the Justice Committee.
As the 45th Parliament progresses, I will do my best to keep residents of Calgary Signal Hill informed of what is happening in Ottawa, and endeavour to give you straight-forward information as well as insight.
As part of my effort to be in contact with constituents and provide you with information, we are planning to schedule our next Town Hall Meeting in April, so please keep an eye out for further information, and do please attend if you can.
Any questions any time, please contact me or our excellent constituency staff: we are here to represent and to assist you!