Summary#

Bill C-6, titled the Appropriation Act No. 1, 2025–26, would create an appropriation law; it does not amend another Act. It would authorize up to $149,771,149,015 for federal public administration expenses for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2026, subject to the purposes and conditions listed for each item. Its stated goal is to cover expenses not otherwise provided for. The supplied material does not establish whether the bill has become law, so these are proposed provisions, not confirmed rules in force.

• It would make $144,228,741,594 available for items in Schedule 1 and $5,542,407,421 for items in Schedule 2.
• The money could be paid only for each item’s stated purpose and subject to its stated conditions.
• Schedule 2 amounts could be paid through March 31, 2027. Payments must first be charged to the earliest relevant appropriation, then to later ones.
• Any Schedule 2 balance not charged would lapse at the end of the following fiscal year, subject to the stated accounting adjustments.

What it means for you#

• Federal departments and public administration: If enacted, the bill would authorize payments for listed expenses. It would not require the full amount to be spent.
• Taxpayers and the public: The bill would authorize use of public money, but the supplied text does not identify which departments or activities would receive it.
• Individuals and businesses: The bill does not itself set a tax, fee, fine, benefit, or eligibility rule. The missing schedules mean the specific activities supported by the appropriations cannot be identified here.

Money#

The bill would authorize up to $149,771,149,015 in public spending; it does not say how much will actually be paid out.

• The authorized total is split between Schedule 1 ($144,228,741,594) and Schedule 2 ($5,542,407,421).
• Each amount is limited to the purpose and conditions attached to its item.
• The supplied material gives no estimate of actual spending or of the cost of administering the appropriations.

What is unclear#

• The schedules are not included, so the recipients, individual amounts, purposes, and conditions cannot be checked.
• The supplied material does not say whether the bill has passed or when it would come into force. If enacted, its items would be treated as effective from April 1, 2025.
• The text does not say how much of the authorized money will be paid out.
• Without the schedules, it is not possible to assess how the money relates to particular existing programs or other appropriations.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to authorize federal expenses that were not covered by other appropriations for 2025–26.
• A possible argument for this approach is that money is tied to specific items, purposes, and conditions rather than being available for any use.
• The Schedule 2 payment-order rule sets out which appropriation must be charged first when multiple appropriations cover a relevant amount.

Case against#

• The bill would authorize a very large sum, but the supplied material does not show how it would be divided among departments or activities.
• The bill’s item-by-item limits cannot be assessed without the schedules.
• The authorized ceiling is not the same as actual spending, and the bill does not say how much will be used.