Appropriation Bill No. 3, 2026-27
Third Reading
June 16, 2026
Moved third reading of Bill C-33, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027.
She said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the Appropriation Act No. 3, 2026-27, better known as Bill C-33.
This bill would provide funding for Supplementary Estimates (A). These estimates outline additional funding, requirements and adjustments for departments to deliver programs and services during the current fiscal year, building on the plans set out in the 2026-27 Main Estimates.
Since you just heard about the Main Estimates, I will leave out some of the details in this discussion on Supplementary Estimates (A).
By providing up-to-date information throughout the year, the supplementary estimates allow parliamentarians to assess proposed expenditures that had not been sufficiently developed in time to be included in the Main Estimates or that were subsequently refined to account for changes to certain programs and services.
Like the Main Estimates, the supplementary estimates also promote transparency and accountability. They provide a clear picture of how the government spends and manages taxpayers’ money, allowing for informed scrutiny both within and outside Parliament.
Supplementary Estimates (A) for 2026-27 presents a total of $11.1 billion in incremental budgetary spending for 59 governmental organizations that have refined all of their plans for this coming year and were able to include information in the supplementary estimates.
These proposed expenditures support a wide range of programs and services to the Canadian population, invest in Canadian communities and enhance national and international security. If approved by Parliament, voted budgetary spending would increase to a total of $241.6 billion. In the Appropriation Act No. 1, 2026-27, we saw $86.4 billion. In the Appropriation Act No. 2, which was just passed, there was $144.1 billion. Now, in this Appropriation Act No. 3, there is $11.1 billion.
Overall, this amount reflects previous funding decisions, including initiatives set out in previous budgets.
Honourable senators, let me now turn to some of the major proposed spending identified in these supplementary estimates, beginning with the Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs.
Indeed, the department is seeking the largest share of these estimates, totalling $3.1 billion. A significant portion of this amount — $2.7 billion — would support the settlement of specific claims submitted under the Expedited Resolution Strategy for agricultural benefits claims.
This strategy is an important step toward addressing longstanding injustices faced by First Nations, particularly in relation to agricultural benefits to which they were entitled but did not fully receive.
By providing a more efficient and focused process for resolving these claims, the strategy helps advance commitments to fairness, reconciliation and the honour of the Crown. For example, $290.5 million is earmarked to address past compensation for Whitesand First Nation.
Honourable colleagues, these investments are not only about resolving past injustices but about creating the conditions for future growth in communities across the country.
That’s why the government is committed to increasing Canada’s housing supply and to investing in modern, reliable infrastructure.
As you may recall, Budget 2025 introduced the Build Communities Strong Fund, a substantial investment of $51 billion over 10 years for a wide range of infrastructure projects to support economic prosperity, housing, education, health, public transportation and climate change adaptation.
The fund will help speed up the construction of hospitals, recreation centres, universities and colleges. This fund will also help speed up the construction of essential infrastructure, such as bridges for transporting goods and the water supply and public transportation networks that keep our cities running smoothly.
These Supplementary Estimates (A) allocate $2.3 billion to the Build Strong Communities Fund this year.
The Defence Department once again features prominently in the supplementary estimates. As much as $1.2 billion of these is targeted toward National Defence. This brings their total budgetary authorities to $51.9 billion. This adds $840 million for Operation REASSURANCE, which supports NATO measures in Central and Eastern Europe; $180 million to purchase 190 more armoured combat support vehicles; and $60 million for Operation AMARNA, which is Canada’s contribution to help support stability in the Middle East.
This funding will also help strengthen NATO’s defence on its eastern flank and help deterrence efforts along Latvia’s nearly 300-kilometre border with Russia.
Critically, this operation reinforces Canada’s collective defence, strengthens cooperative security and keeps NATO strong at a time of rapid global change.
When Defence officials came to the Finance Committee, much time was spent discussing the Buy Canadian Policy. Members were delighted to hear how much effort is being made to move Canadian suppliers in every element of defence spending. Last year, the BDC received $2.2 billion to promote small- and medium-sized businesses and help them get in that supply chain.
To make us feel even more confident about where our money is going, the officials confirmed at committee that the defence spend is about 80% in Canada and about 20% outside of Canada, and that is before the full force of the Buy Canadian Policy arrives.
Witnesses appeared before the National Finance Committee to examine both the Main Estimates and the Supplementary Estimates (A) simultaneously.
Fisheries and Oceans officials answered several questions regarding the multi-billion-dollar cut to their budget.
In reality, rather than having been cut, more than $3 billion has been transferred to the Department of National Defence’s budget; these were the funds allocated to the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard was transferred to the Department of National Defence last September, and its mandate was expanded to include missions such as surveillance, which now fall under the remit of National Defence.
The 2026-27 Main Estimates we heard about earlier today included $1.5 billion in funding to the Public Health Agency of Canada. That included items like the 9-8-8 Suicide Crisis Helpline, the backup pandemic influenza supply contracts and support for the Pan-Canadian Action Plan on Antimicrobial Resistance.
Today, the Supplementary Estimates (A) include $54.4 million for influenza preparedness. That also includes $5 million to support a childhood vaccination advertising campaign.
With this same Public Health Agency, there is a request for the Canadian Dental Care Plan of $148 million; this is specifically for the delivery and administration of the program. Earlier budget documents brought to this floor included the $3.4 billion that was assigned to the oral health providers.
These supplementary estimates also propose $736.8 million for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority to meet operating and capital requirements. This funding would help maintain security screening operations as the number of airline passengers continues to increase. It would also help upgrade equipment, like replacing older X-ray machines with more efficient scanners.
Also on transportation, in these supplementary estimates, Transport Canada is requesting $39.2 million for Eastern Canada ferry services, which was good news: six ferry terminals, their associated port infrastructure and four ferry vessels.
Honourable senators, the Department of Indigenous Services would also receive significant funding under this budget.
A total of $311.1 million would be allocated to fund mental wellness and substance use treatment services.
This funding would sustain access to essential resources and services, such as community-based workers, mental health counsellors and 24-7 access to crisis lines.
I would also like to touch on the proposed funding for VIA Rail. Last year, they had an increase in revenue of $36.8 million and have maintained a ridership level of 4.4 million. They have reached 58% recovery of their cost. These estimates would provide $261.8 million to help cover VIA Rail’s operating costs, which includes salaries, fuel, on-train products, inspection programs and service agreements on third-party tracks.
In addition to voted funding, the Supplementary Estimates (A) also reflect updates to statutory spending. These updates do not require Parliament’s approval, but they are included to provide a more complete picture of each organization’s total expected spending for the year.
Statutory spending is expected to decrease by $49.6 million to a total of $272.4 billion. The decrease is largely due to forecasts of $529.7 million for Build Canada Homes, an increase of $492 million for elderly benefits and an increase of $364.8 million for the Canada Infrastructure Bank, offset by a decrease of $1.5 billion for public debt costs.
Honourable senators, you can see how the process of budgeting and approvals is complex. It is an organization that has such diverse funding programs. I’ve tried to select interesting items to show the breadth of government services that are supplied to Canadians.
Several of the ministries and agencies came before the hawks at the Finance Committee where the witnesses were subject to a great deal of questioning.
I would invite those who would like to know more to review the record of the National Finance Committee’s deliberations.
For those of you who would like to read all of the transcripts of the Finance Committee, I think you would enjoy that read.
You will see that the city of Rimouski features regularly in the discussions, as do issues relating to youth unemployment.
This is an excellent way to see how senators fulfill their role in scrutinizing the Supplementary Estimates (A).
Many initiatives involve several departments. Others span several budget cycles. Others still must adapt to changing economic conditions or new priorities.
In this context, a thorough review becomes even more essential.
It does allow us to track how initiatives develop from their initial inclusion in the Main Estimates through subsequent adjustments in supplementary estimates, like the ones before us today. With the ongoing scrutiny of the rollout of the new Canadian Dental Care Plan, for example, we can count on the ongoing questions from Senator Gignac as he tracks the costing of the program as it grows.
Departments and agencies are called on to explain their plans more clearly, to articulate expected results more precisely and to account more fully for how the public funds are being used. More importantly, it means asking if these programs and services are benefiting Canadians as intended.
Let me finish by once again encouraging colleagues and citizens to go to GC InfoBase; it offers an accessible, comprehensive view of government expenditures and Departmental Plans. It provides forward-looking accounts of planned spending, performance expectations and program priorities for the individual organizations.
Can I ask senators to pass Bill C-33, Supplementary Estimates (A), so we can keep the wheels of the government rolling?
Thank you again for your attention.
Senator Pupatello, would you take a couple of questions?
Yes.
Thank you. In one part of your speech, you were speaking about $1.5 billion in health spending, and you mentioned the 9-8-8 Suicide Crisis Helpline. I’m wondering how much of that $1.5 billion of health spending is allocated to that. Then, in another part of your speech, you spoke about $311 million, and you mentioned mental health and substance abuse treatment. I’m just wondering what some examples are and what that $311 million is being spent on.
You also mentioned 24-7 access to emergency helplines. I’m wondering if that is the same as the 9-8-8 Suicide Crisis Helpline or if that is something different. What other examples do you have of government spending on mental health and substance abuse treatment?
Thank you for the question. The amount of $311 million was specifically identified as services for Indigenous Services Canada and through that ministry. The 9-8-8 number is through the Public Health Agency of Canada. So they were two separate agencies and two separate amounts. After today, we can provide you with more details in writing about other examples that were included. Thank you.
Yes, I would like to know how much the 9-8-8 Suicide Crisis Helpline is. Many of us put a lot of work into making sure that became a reality, so we would like the information about that, please.
Also, I don’t think the $311 million was included in that Indigenous health section. If you could also please provide us with confirmation about that, that would be helpful.
Another question is this: I know it has been in the news recently, and Senator Ataullahjan has asked a couple of questions in Question Period about the federal government’s large spending on the FIFA World Cup 2026. Given the timing, is that an item that is in this budgetary amount?
I believe our Senate National Finance Committee heard from officials this morning, who identified a set amount designated for FIFA. There would be amounts across a number of different ministries, and I don’t think we’ve seen the total yet. For example, Public Safety Canada would have an amount related specifically to security. The Department of Canadian Heritage would have an amount related specifically to athletes. It has been spread out across the government, but after today, we can endeavour to look at a total amount across the ministry, and we’ll certainly ask that question.
Thank you. Yes, because some of us were in different committees doing clause by clause of government bills at that point, so obviously, we didn’t have the opportunity to see those witnesses. That would actually be a good question to have answered before we even have the vote today. If the officials just gave you the answer this morning, it should be something that you can get relatively quickly. Thank you.
That was this morning, but it was only one specific ministry. This morning, we heard from the Department of Canadian Heritage, and we heard from Public Safety Canada a few days ago. We’ll try to total that across various government departments and see if we can come up with a total. Thank you.
Senator Pupatello, would you take a question?
Yes.
Thank you. I was wondering if you could just repeat the amount of money dedicated to the promotion of childhood vaccinations and if there is any information related to increased childhood vaccinations that is expected with this investment.
I’m going to get you that exact number as soon as I go through this. I will tell you that the details about how many vaccines will actually be authorized weren’t included in the material that was submitted, but that’s also something that the Public Health Agency of Canada can provide.
Senator Pupatello, would you take one more quick question?
Yes.
With regard to the mental health and addictions investment, do you know what percentage of this total would be one-time funding for new projects and what percentage would be committed operational funding? Historically, we have seen federal investments for one-time pilot projects, and then it finishes and provinces are expected to take over. I am just interested in some feedback on that.
The numbers outlined in today’s discussion were related to ongoing funding for the ministry writ large or the Public Health Agency, but we did realize through the Senate National Finance Committee that a number of organizations have to constantly have their funds almost sunsetted and then approved again so that it continues on in that fashion. I certainly agree that it becomes difficult for organizations that aren’t directly the ministry or a government employee to sort out whether they will still be there in a couple of years. Those questions were certainly posed at the Senate National Finance Committee. That amount, though, was specifically for the Public Health Agency.
Honourable senators, I rise today to speak to Bill C-33, An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2027, the Supplementary Estimates (A), seeking approval for an additional $11.1 billion, primarily to fund the settlement of Indigenous claims, housing, infrastructure, transportation and defence. It also includes a few measures that were announced in Budget 2025, particularly for culture, the FIFA World Cup 2026, and trade diversification.
To answer my colleague’s question about the budget for FIFA, it’s $473 billion, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer stated and as officials confirmed this morning. Actually, it’s $465 billion, because $8 billion — sorry, I mean $8 million; we say “billion” so much in committee. The actual figure is $468 million, with about $200 million coming from Canadian Heritage, about $160 million coming from Public Safety Canada, $74 million coming from the RCMP, and different amounts established for each one. The Supplementary Estimates (A) set out some funding for FIFA, including additional funding requested for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and for security.
The bill authorizes spending, but let’s not overlook the fact that that spending amounts to $11 billion.
As I pointed out earlier during our consideration of Bill C-32, Parliament’s role is not simply to authorize the expenditures put before it. Our role is to scrutinize them and to ask questions. Our role is to ensure that public money is used efficiently, transparently and responsibly. Having heard the witnesses who came before the Senate committee, I remain, once again, very concerned.
There was a recurring theme during the committee hearings. At the risk of repeating myself, the government is seeking appropriations today and saying the answers will come tomorrow. This way of governing should worry us all. In fact, colleagues, Parliament is finding it increasingly difficult to track public money. One of the key findings of our study is the growing difficulty parliamentarians face in keeping track of exactly how public funds are being used.
Take military spending, for example. The government claims to have met the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on defence. We are told the figure is $65.9 billion. This is, of course, a spectacular increase. It represents an increase of nearly 50% compared with the previous year. However, when the committee sought to understand exactly how this figure was calculated, we discovered a much more complex reality.
First, as soon as any money is spent from the Department of National Defence’s budget, that amount is counted toward the 2% spending target, even if the spending is related to climate change, for example. What’s more, only a portion of the 2% actually comes from the Department of National Defence. Other departments and agencies are also contributing billions of dollars. In fact, the committee had to ask for a detailed accounting of where the money was coming from in order to better understand where the government got these figures.
Honourable senators, it is fair to ask questions when we have to ask for a detailed breakdown to understand an announcement as fundamental as meeting NATO’s 2% target and a future target of 5% of GDP, because that is what has been announced. That means that nearly $160 billion will be spent annually in the coming years. Parliament should not have to piece together the government’s figures itself.
In the course of our work, a recurring theme emerged. Even though the senators were asking simple, valid questions, the witnesses kept answering that they needed to double-check and that they would get us the information later. Honourable senators, that is not how accountability to Parliament should work.
Take governmental cybersecurity. The committee wanted to know how many organizations were affected by the shortcomings identified by the Auditor General, what the risks were and what corrective measures were planned. Or take the transfer of the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence, or the Grande-Entrée harbour file. In each of these cases, the committee asked valid questions, but we were told the answers would be provided later. These may not be the highest-profile government files, but they illustrate the problem clearly. Parliament wants accountability, but in too many cases, the answers don’t come till later.
Honourable senators, let me now turn to a program that the government regularly holds up as one of its greatest accomplishments: the Canadian Dental Care Plan.
According to the testimony our committee heard, this program now costs $3.4 billion per year. The government projected that the cost could reach $4 billion. Last year alone, an extra $1.6 billion had to be added because the costs were exceeding the original projections.
This year, Health Canada is requesting an additional $148 million for this program. Senator Gignac asked departmental representatives where that $3.4-billion expenditure appears in the budget. The answer was surprising: It doesn’t, really. It’s part of the department’s overall expenditures. Senator Gignac then raised a fundamental problem: Even though this is a significant expenditure, parliamentarians struggled to clearly identify it in the estimates they were given. Honourable senators, when a program costs billions of dollars a year, parliamentarians should be able to easily see where that expenditure is. That is the very basis of accountability.
These concerns aren’t new. During scrutiny of the Main Estimates, the committee had already found that Health Canada was unable to provide some basic information about the cannabis program, as I explained earlier. This is not just a money issue. It’s also a management, oversight and accountability issue.
During the study of Bill C-32, I spoke about the gradual weakening of accountability mechanisms. I also mentioned a broader pattern that has been emerging since the start of this parliamentary session: Parliament is being asked to approve more funds, while the executive is making a growing number of decisions by order-in-council. What we heard during the study of Bill C-33 was similar: higher spending, bigger programs, more complex administrative structures and answers that are sometimes hard to come by.
I’m not saying that the public servants who appeared before our committee were acting in bad faith. Far from it; their professionalism was clear. However, effective public servants are no substitute for institutional monitoring mechanisms. Parliament can’t function on trust alone. Its actions must be based on information. Whether it’s defence spending, the Canadian Dental Care Plan, cybersecurity or the many other files about which we are still waiting for answers, the same observation applies.
Parliament is being asked to approve spending before it has all of the necessary information. When the government requests an extra $11 billion, the fundamental question isn’t whether each program is useful. The real question is whether Parliament has the necessary information to fully exercise its role.
Based on our study of the Supplementary Estimates (A), and in light of all the answers yet to come, I’m not sure that it does. We’ve run into deferred responses, figures that are hard to locate, and major programs with inadequate oversight. We’ve seen a government asking for even more resources without consistently displaying the same level of transparency. In fact, the growing opacity of this government is starting to cause me serious concern, if not worry. Essentially, the government is asking us to trust it again today. We’re supposed to trust it with an additional $11 billion. However, at the risk of repeating what I said earlier, trust can’t be commanded by order-in-council. It has to be earned.
As I also mentioned in my speech at the third reading of Bill C-32, when a government asks for more money, it must be prepared to provide more information. When it asks for more appropriations, it must be prepared to accept more oversight. When it asks for Parliament’s trust, it must be able to show that its accountability mechanisms are commensurate with the amounts it’s requesting. The testimony heard in committee shows that these mechanisms sometimes fall short.
In closing, honourable senators, I would like to thank all of my committee colleagues for their incredible participation and their sometimes tough but fair questions. Their goal was not to be partisan, but to seek true accountability. I am very proud to chair the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. It is a privilege to lead such a knowledgeable and diligent group of senators.
I’m sure it will come as no surprise that I am asking you to vote against this bill. I hope to be more successful this time. I hope I have convinced more senators.
Thank you.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
(Motion agreed to and bill read third time and passed, on division.)
