Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

Bill C-30, Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act · Second reading · now law Where it stands

What the law does

The law implements measures from the spring economic update, temporarily removing the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel, and aviation fuels from April 20, 2026, to September 7, 2026. It lowers Canada Pension Plan contribution rates starting in 2027 and extends extra Employment Insurance weeks for seasonal workers to October 2028. It also makes other changes to tax rules, alcohol excise duties, transportation data, and federal regulation of banking, food inspection, and pest control products.

Official text (opens in a new tab)

37 statements

Danielle Martin, University—Rosedale

Liberal
“I want to work with all members in the House. We should look at good ideas from other parties and countries.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with the member opposite and every member of the House. As we know, this is a party that attracts people from all across the political spectrum and, in fact, from all sides of the aisle. There are lots of good ideas that we can take from all kinds of countries as we consider our options going forward.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“Our health care system needs more money. Costs are going up faster than federal funding. I want the member to push the government to give more money to health care.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to welcome the newly elected member and congratulate her on her excellent speech. I believe this is her first speech. Large parts of it were delivered in impeccable French. It is heartwarming to hear that. I was very moved by my colleague’s concern for health care. That is the top priority for people in Quebec. People often speak to me about it. Unfortunately, our health care system is under strain. This is often due to a lack of funding. One demand the Bloc Québécois has been making of the government for years is to increase funding for the health care system. Health transfers are increasing by about 3% a year, but the costs of the system are rising by 6% a year. We are therefore in the same situation as we were during the Harper years. Will my hon. colleague put pressure on the government to increase health care funding?

Danielle Martin, University—Rosedale

Liberal

Linked statement

“I support this economic plan because it focuses on health care. Our government is spending a lot of money to keep people healthy, even though working with the provinces on health care is hard.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important issue. As I see it, the economic statement we are discussing today is all about health care from start to finish. The investments our government is making in the determinants of health are truly significant. Negotiations between the federal government and the provinces and territories regarding health care will always require a lot of work.

Marianne Dandurand, Compton—Stanstead

Liberal
“I want the member to explain how our health care system can set a good example for the United States.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on a question asked by my colleague across the aisle regarding relations with the United States. I would like my colleague to talk about what our country can do to set a good example in terms of health care systems. What kind of example can we set for the United States?

Danielle Martin, University—Rosedale

Liberal
“Our health care system is a great victory. No Canadian should go broke paying for medical care. All parties agree on this, and we must keep protecting it.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 47 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, despite all of our challenges, our health care system in Canada is a great moral victory. The notion that no Canadian should ever be bankrupted by medical costs is a fundamental premise that is held up by all sides of the political spectrum. I believe that is a lesson Canada can continue to teach the world, and one we must continue to heed ourselves in all of the great work ahead.

Gord Johns, Courtenay—Alberni

NDP
“I want the member to push her government to make a free medicine deal with Ontario. People in her province need coverage for prescription drugs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on her election. She has been a strong proponent of a universal public pharmacare plan. She has long advocated and argued that a national single-payer pharmacare program would actually save money, but now she represents a riding in a province that does not have a pharmacare deal. Can New Democrats, the people of Ontario and the people of her riding count on her to be a champion, to force her government to get to the table with Ontario and deliver on the promise of a national pharmacare plan so those people in Ontario can actually get access to it?

Danielle Martin, University—Rosedale

Liberal
“The Ontario government and the federal government must meet to talk about a national plan to pay for prescription medicine. They both need to be involved.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleague across the way as well. Absolutely, I think it will be critically important for the Government of Ontario to sit down with the Government of Canada to talk about the future of pharmacare. There is no universe in which that conversation can happen without both parties at the table.

Elizabeth May, Saanich—Gulf Islands

Green
“I want to know if the member agrees that climate change is the biggest threat to public health. Will she help push her government to act faster on it?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I must start with congratulating the new member for University—Rosedale. I have long admired her advocacy for our public health care system when going down to Washington. This may be a bit of a tough question. Does she agree with the Canadian Medical Association that the climate crisis is the single biggest public health threat of the 21st century? Can she help us get it back on track, with her government at the moment going slow?

Danielle Martin, University—Rosedale

Liberal
“The World Health Organization says climate change is the biggest threat to health in the world. Our government makes it a priority to protect the climate so we can protect people's health.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Clarity 49 of 100

    Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is the World Health Organization itself that has deemed climate change to be the number one threat to health all over the world. It is not just a problem in Canada, as the member knows well. Certainly, it is absolutely a priority of this government and must continue to be a priority for all of us to make sure we are taking care of those essential determinants of health, including the climate.

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“The government is spending and borrowing too much money while life gets more expensive for Canadians. It wastes billions on outside consultants, bureaucracy, and broken computer projects. I want the government to stop this waste, cut back its spending, and leave more money with taxpayers.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Riding Mountain. On April 28, the Minister of Finance proudly tabled his economic update. He talked about “Canada Strong”. He repeats that line every week in the House. The 167‑page update includes billions of dollars in spending, $25 billion for a sovereign debt fund, strategies, programs and announcements on top of announcements. In Parliament, the government was talking about ambition. Meanwhile, on April 28, people in Baie‑Saint‑Paul, Saint‑Hilarion, Beaupré, Boischatel, L’Isle‑aux‑Coudres, Île d’Orléans and in Montmorency—Charlevoix were going about their daily lives. Families were worried about their grocery bills. Young couples were holding off on buying their first home. Seniors were counting down the days until their next pension cheque. Workers were wondering how they were going to be able to pay their mortgage at the end of the month. These are the two realities that we are facing here in Canada in 2026. In Ottawa, the government talks to us about billions of dollars; in Quebec, however, people talk to us about dollars. I am rising today to make a connection between these two realities. To hear the Liberals talk in the House, it seems like all is well, yet Canadians know the truth, because they live with it daily. They go to the grocery store and see that things are more expensive. They go to the gas station and gas seems a lot more expensive too. When the time comes to pay their rent, mortgage or credit card, they see that something is wrong. I would like to talk about credit card budgets. The government talks about discipline, caution and responsibility, but let us look at the facts through the eyes of an an impartial third party. Claude Lavoie is not a Conservative. He was director-general of economic studies at Finance Canada. He said this: It’s not that the GDP is doing better. It’s more that we took in more revenue [including from gas taxes, because gas is expensive, so it brings in more money] and spent a little less by deferring certain expenses. In other words, the programs that were announced were not delivered, the money was not spent and people were taxed more. Now, the government is telling us that public finances have been carefully managed and that it has kept its promises. No, the government did not keep its promises at all. Not only did it not spend the money, but it imposed more taxes. It is also important to note that the Liberals are projecting an average deficit of $55 billion over five years. Things are not going well when it comes to taxation. The Conservatives are calling this a credit card budget. Basically, the government is paying the bills with the national credit card. Then, Canadians are forced to pay their bills with their own personal credit cards. That is why everything costs more. It is because when the Liberals spend without any limit, prices, interest rates and mortgages all go up and families get poorer. Today, the interest on the debt costs more than all of the health transfers to all the provinces. We were talking about health transfers. The interest on the debt costs more than all of that. Imagine. Every dollar people spend on federal taxes when they make a purchase goes toward paying bankers and bondholders. It does not go toward paying doctors and nurses, let alone supporting patients. Meanwhile, Canadians are skipping meals. There are parents who work full time. Some even work overtime, like Kevin, who called me this week to talk about his situation. He even shared his story with QUB Radio through tears. That is the reality for hard-working citizens who can no longer make ends meet. It is not that these people are not putting in the resources, the work or the effort. It is that they simply can no longer survive under Liberal rule, which takes everything from them. There are seniors living on $2,000 a month. How is anyone supposed to get by on $2,000 a month? The Prime Minister told us that affordability is the best it has ever been, but people do not live in press releases. They live in the real world. I would like to discuss something else that was announced: the sovereign debt fund. Despite inflation and the cost of living crisis, the government found a way to borrow $25 billion to create a gimmicky sovereign debt fund. The government talks about Norway and says that it will follow the Norwegians’ approach. It cannot be serious. Norway built its sovereign wealth fund by developing its resources and became wealthy by selling these resources. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund is worth $3.5 trillion Canadian. It achieved this by developing its resources, not by going into debt and borrowing money. What is the Canadian government doing? Instead of using surpluses, it is taking on more debt to create the illusion of a sovereign wealth fund when that is not what it actually is. Basically, it is as if our neighbour boasted about opening up a savings account and depositing money into it but failed to mention that he used his credit card for the deposit. Ultimately, it is not a terrible idea, although what is most concerning is that the government refuses to even say how much this fund is going to cost per year. It is the flagship measure in its economic announcement, its economic update, but it refuses to say what the real annual cost will be. When a government refuses to say how much its key measure will cost, that is not transparency; it is a warning about what is to come. It shows what Canadians are going to experience in the coming years. While the government is asking people to tighten their belts and telling young people to make sacrifices, we are seeing money fly off in every direction. The government is investing at least $90 billion in Alto, a high-speed train project that the Minister of Finance recused himself from, or at least, he was supposed to. After 18 hours of Liberal monologues, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics was finally able to call the minister to answer questions. The government is investing close to $1 billion in the program to confiscate legal, registered guns. The government is going to spend nearly $1 billion to take those guns away, when they are clearly not the problem. The government spends $20 billion a year on outside consultants. It has hired 100,000 public servants over the past 10 years, and yet it still has to spend more than $20 billion a year on consultants. It has spent $65 billion on bureaucracy, which just keeps expanding. It spent $42 million in just one year on the Major Projects Office, which has not recommended a single project since it was created. Meanwhile, Canadian families are still having to choose between paying for groceries, paying the rent and putting gas in their cars. That is why the priority really lies elsewhere for the Conservatives. Our priority is to put money back in the pockets of Canadians, not in the pockets of consultants, not in the pockets of well-connected insiders and not in the coffers of poorly managed megaprojects. We want to put money back in the pockets of Canadians. I mentioned mismanaged projects. One that comes to mind straightaway is Cúram. Cúram is the latest chapter in an ongoing saga. In fact, we have not talked about it enough, and it needs to be discussed. It was in the budget. It is a computer system that was supposed to modernize pension payments, but what actually happened was that tens of thousands of seniors did not receive their cheques. These are people who worked all their lives, paid their taxes and trusted the government. What did the government do? In its economic update, with the trust of Canadians, it threw another $473 million at this fiasco. The total cost of creating this software was estimated at $1.75 billion, yet it has apparently surpassed $7 billion. That is what we are learning, because we are finding out more every day. The cost increased by 277%, for a cost overrun of $5.25 billion. That is what the Liberals’ idea of sound and effective management of public finances. It gets even worse. It might seem like this must be the end, but it is not, because there was also an internal memo forbidding public servants from telling seniors who were not receiving their cheques that the problem was caused by the new software. Two days after the economic update was released and the additional $473 million thrown at this fiasco was discovered, the government used its majority to block the opposition’s requests for parliamentary documents. Every day when a sitting of the House of Commons opens, the Speaker stands up and says, “Let the doors be opened”. Basically, the Speaker is telling the citizens to enter the people’s House. However, when opposition parties ask questions, those doors close. That is not transparency. That is certainly not accountability. I would, however, like to mention one good thing about the economic update, and that is sport. When something good is being done, we should be able to acknowledge it. The investments in amateur sport and sports federations are excellent news. It is too bad that we cannot vote on just one measure, because everyone agrees with that one. That is not a Conservative or Liberal point of view, but a Canadian point of view. The investments in sport and physical activity are good investments. That said, this measure is aimed primarily at the young people, families and volunteers who spend their evenings at rinks and fields. I look forward to seeing how direct support will be delivered to our teams on the ground. People can trust me because I am able to point out what is being done right. I am not just being partisan when I make a judgment and say that bad things are happening. Our role is not just to criticize or oppose; it is also to put forward proposals. Conservatives believe that a government should live by the same rules as Canadian families. When money is tight, choices have to be made. The government should cut waste, reduce unnecessary spending and respect workers’ money, because every dollar spent comes out of taxpayers’ pockets, and that needs to be respected. I will conclude on that note. The government needs to cut spending on consultants, trim the bureaucracy, put an end to mismanaged projects, cut waste and stop interfering in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The government also needs to excel in the few areas where the Canadian federation requires its involvement, namely borders, the armed forces, the justice system, a strong dollar and strong interprovincial trade. This is what we should be focusing on to ensure that our constituents live in a prosperous country and feel that that is their reality.

Gabriel Ste-Marie, Joliette—Manawan

Bloc Québécois
“The deficit is only lower than expected because the government delayed spending and spent less on natural disasters. Also, the new $25 billion fund is kept off the budget balance sheet, but it still adds $25 billion to our debt. I want to know if that is a good idea.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his very interesting speech. I will come back to what he said at the beginning about the deficit, which is lower than expected because growth was higher than expected, given that government spending was deferred. There is also another factor. The disaster mitigation and adaptation fund was used less than anticipated. If there had been more floods or fires, we would have had the expected deficit. I want to raise another point that my colleague mentioned later in his speech: the Canada Strong fund. That is $25 billion over three years. It does not appear on the balance sheet. In accounting terms, it is off-budget because it is asset-backed. However, as the member said, it still adds $25 billion to the government’s debt, even if it does not appear in the deficit. Is that a good idea?

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“The Prime Minister is calling this a sovereign wealth fund, but it is not one. It is funded by debt. England made the same kind of fund when the Prime Minister worked there, and they did not call it a sovereign wealth fund. He knows better, and calling it that is a mistake.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Respect 88 of 100

    This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “He knows that this is not a sovereign wealth fund”.

    See full analysis
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is very odd. In 2024, England set up a fund exactly like that. It was a fund directly financed with debt. The British Parliament refused to call it a sovereign wealth fund because that is not what it was. The term does exist, and it applies in some countries, such as Norway. However, the concept we are discussing is not a real sovereign wealth fund. Oddly enough, our current Prime Minister was a consultant. He was there to help the British Parliament put that in place. He knows that this is not a sovereign wealth fund. He is using the term, but not the concept. In my opinion, that is a mistake.

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

Liberal
“The member is wrong. This is a sovereign wealth fund, and many countries have them. The Conservatives and the Bloc are working together to stop Canada from having one. This fund would invest billions of dollars in major projects and create thousands of jobs.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member is just wrong. It is a sovereign wealth fund. Many countries around the world have sovereign wealth funds. Conservatives can say whatever they want, but at the end of the day, it is a sovereign wealth fund. The other thing that is very clear is that we have the unholy alliance of the Conservatives and the Bloc making the decision that Canada should not have a sovereign wealth fund. They cannot make the connection between the major projects, the sovereign wealth fund and how billions of dollars are going to be used for such things as, in some cases, those major projects moving forward and, in other cases, different ways that funds can be brought in to create thousands of jobs and all sorts of economic opportunities. Why are the Conservatives stopping progress—

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“The Liberals claim to have a wealth fund, but they are paying for it with debt. They spend too much without asking Canadians, and they are putting our country deeper into debt every year. We will lose an average of $55 billion a year over the next five years. It is a mistake to gamble with public money.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 92 of 100

    Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always rather funny to hear our Liberal colleagues speaking to us as though their words are actually backed up by results. They talk about a wealth fund, meaning a fund containing wealth, but it is actually financed through debt. I said that the British Parliament refused to call it that. It was not the Conservatives in Canada who did so, but the British Parliament. The Prime Minister was an adviser on the project. He was told it would not be called that. The other thing my colleague just said is that Canadians are not being given the chance to make a decision. Indeed, that is what the Liberals have been doing for the past 11 years. They spend without restraint. They impose their decisions on Canadians by telling them that it is the right thing to do and that they have nothing to worry about, but we go further into debt year after year. Things are not getting any better. The country’s finances are not getting any better. Over the next five years, we will lose an average of $55 billion a year. They want us to believe that money will suddenly start growing on trees and everything will be fine. That is gambling with taxpayers’ money, and it is a mistake.

Tamara Jansen, Cloverdale—Langley City

Conservative
“A study says the government's buy-Canada policy could cost over $12 billion a year. Does my colleague think spending more money on projects like high-speed rail is the best way to help Canadians during a cost-of-living crisis?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, a recent study by the Montreal Economic Institute estimates that the government’s buy Canada policy could drive up costs by more than $12 billion a year. During an affordability crisis, does my colleague think paying much higher prices for Liberal vanity projects like Alto rail is the best way to help Canadians keep more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets?

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“I oppose the government spending billions of dollars on a high-speed train. We do not know how much tickets or upkeep will cost, and it will use tax money to compete with airlines. Taxpayers will be stuck paying for it for generations.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. Once again, it is a grand idea. Canada is going to build a high-speed rail system at the taxpayers’ expense. California is currently trying it out. It has already cost $300 billion, and it is not over yet. Here, they say it will cost $90 billion, but they do not say how much a ticket will cost. They are selling a project, but they are not saying how many people will be on it or how much it will cost to maintain. We already have airlines operating between Toronto and Montreal and between Montreal and Quebec City. They pay taxes and create jobs. Now the government is going to take responsibility for this and use public funds to compete with the private sector. What is more, the government is not telling people how much it will cost to ride this infamous train. It may turn out to be more expensive and less efficient than flying. Families will not use that train, but they will be paying for it their whole lives, for generations to come.

Dan Mazier, Riding Mountain

Conservative
“The Liberals wasted 300 million dollars on a digital prescription program that failed and was shut down. Hardly anyone used it, and the head of the non-profit running it made nearly 900,000 dollars a year. This shows the government wastes money without accountability.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 8 of 100

    Only 1% of this question directly addressed the speech or the topic being debated.

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the bill is about how much money the Liberals have actually wasted here. The PrescribeIT program is a blinding example, and it is absolutely a waste of $300 million. Canada Health Infoway is a so-called non-profit organization funded by the federal Minister of Health. For nearly a decade, the Liberals poured money into a program called “PrescribeIT”. They promised PrescribeIT would eliminate fax machines for prescription drugs, but as a result, it was a $300-million failure. There was $300 million spent, and fewer than 5% of prescriptions ever made were on the platform. In my province of Manitoba, a province of over one million people, the program collected just over $1,200 in fee revenue over 15 months. The Liberals promised that it would be financially self-sustainable. What a joke. However, after spending $300 million with nothing to show for it, the Liberals quietly shut down the program and hoped that Canadians would never notice. The CEO of Canada Health Infoway, who refused to disclose his own salary at the health committee, was earning nearly $900,000 a year while this was happening. This was for a non-profit organization. He was fired last month, after the Conservatives launched an investigation. This is what Liberal spending looks like. It is a black hole with no accountability.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 118

  1. Oral Questions Finance 5 statements
  2. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Small Business 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  6. Oral Questions Automotive Industry 6 statements
  7. Oral Questions Health 5 statements
  8. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  9. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 4 statements
  10. Oral Questions Health 6 statements
  11. Oral Questions Official Languages 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions International Trade 6 statements
  13. Oral Questions Fisheries and Oceans 3 statements
  14. Oral Questions Health 3 statements
  15. Oral Questions Taxation 5 statements
  16. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 8 statements
  17. Oral Questions Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship 2 statements
  18. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 7 statements
  19. Oral Questions Aerospace Industry 2 statements
  20. Oral Questions Seniors 3 statements
  21. Government Orders Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 37 statements
  22. Private Members' Business Silver Alert National Framework Act 11 statements
  23. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  24. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements