Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30

Bill C-30, Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act · Motion on how the bill proceeds · now law Where it stands

The House debated Bill C-30, the Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act, which puts into law measures from the government’s spring economic update, including changes to the Labour Mobility Deduction for tradespeople, a temporary cut of the excise tax on gasoline and diesel, extensions of alcohol excise duty caps, and various other tax, employment insurance, and regulatory measures. Conservative members opposed the bill, saying government spending and borrowing were raising costs and interest rates, that taxes and regulations were making life less affordable, and that the bill was not addressing housing; they also moved an amendment about the bill’s debate and argued it was being rushed without enough time for expert study. Bloc Québécois members criticized the government’s dropping of the digital services tax and suggested reviving job-preserving benefits, while also questioning Conservative spending priorities. Liberal members said Conservatives were delaying bills through filibuster rather than addressing the country’s challenges. Some time was also taken up with discussion of the Snowbirds aircraft being cancelled, military support, health care spending, and procedural exchanges about closure and speaking rules.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

6 statements

Mario Beaulieu, La Pointe-de-l'Île

Bloc Québécois
“Quebec and the provinces pay for health care with their own tax dollars. The federal government used to cover half of these costs, but now it covers only 22 percent and will likely cut future increases. How can Quebec and the provinces run their health systems when Ottawa takes their tax money and cuts health funding?”
  • 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, the money for health transfers comes from the taxes paid by Quebec and the provinces. Initially, the federal government committed to covering 50% of the provinces’ health care costs. It is now covering just 22%. The provinces protested. They wanted the government to raise that amount to 35%. The Bloc Québécois would have liked the government to at least maintain the 6% escalator, but it did not do so. It is probably going to drop to 3% soon. How are the provinces and Quebec supposed to manage if the federal government takes their tax money and then makes cuts to health transfers? What does my colleague think about that?

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“The government gave in to Donald Trump's demands by dropping the digital tax on big tech companies. I want the government to make these American companies pay their share to support our culture and media.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague’s remarks and would like to hear him speak to the issue of Canadian sovereignty, since he brought it up again. From the Bloc Québécois’s perspective, we feel that this amounts to Canadian subservience to Donald Trump’s demands, particularly in the cultural sector. One of our expectations regarding the latest economic statement was that the government would reintroduce the digital services tax. Not only did the government fail to reintroduce this tax, but we saw last week that it even gave up on forcing big tech companies to contribute their share to funding culture. Would funding culture and ensuring that American multinationals pay for media content not have been a way to strengthen Canadian sovereignty?

Rhéal Éloi Fortin, Rivière-du-Nord

Bloc Québécois
“We should separate short-term spending, like help for groceries, from long-term spending. The government should bring back benefits that help keep people employed during hard times.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether a distinction should be drawn between immediate spending, such as groceries, and long-term spending on measures such as those recommended by the Bloc Québécois. On example I am thinking of is reinstating the benefit to help keep workers in their jobs during difficult times, as well as all those measures that help us weather the crisis—

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“Our economy is hurting because of the trade fight with the United States. I want my colleague to share what his American contacts are saying about the next trade talks. I also want his opinion on how the government is handling these negotiations.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 20 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, behind the economic update lies an economic situation that is strongly affected by the trade war with the United States. I would like to ask my colleague for his insights. I would like him to tell us what he has heard from his contacts in the United States regarding the next steps in the renegotiation of CUSMA. Also, what is his view of how the Liberal government is currently conducting the negotiations?

Andréanne Larouche, Shefford

Bloc Québécois
“The government ignored all of our party's recommendations for this bill. Experts say pausing the fuel tax is a bad idea because it cuts government revenue for social programs and hurts the fight against climate change. I want to know what my colleague thinks about this.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment and then a question for my colleague, whom I thank for her speech. I will add my thoughts on this democratic issue. While the government was busy manufacturing its majority, it did not accept any of the 11 recommendations from the Bloc Québécois. In such a context, the government should have talked to us and listened to us. However, this government has a tendency to move further and further away from listening and from democracy. Now, here is my question for my colleague. In terms of the measure in the economic statement on suspending the excise tax on gasoline, some economic experts, including Luc Godbout from Quebec, maintain that it is not a good decision, from the perspective of both a balanced budget and the environment. At a time when we need to invest in our infrastructure and social programs, we just deprived ourselves of a source of revenue. Moreover, experts are saying that there is a risk of forest fires this summer because of climate change and global warming. What does my colleague think about that?

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“The Conservatives say they want to save public money, but they do not speak out against subsidies for oil and gas companies. Those companies are making record profits. That money should be used to help the people of Saskatchewan instead.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his great speech. I heard all of his demands for his province of Saskatchewan that Ottawa has not listened to. I heard him list the things that Saskatchewan is asking for and not getting. I have a serious question for him about something that is bothering me. The Conservatives often talk about reducing the deficit, as my colleague mentioned, and being responsible with public funds. Our party is constantly condemning the subsidies for oil and gas companies. We see these companies raking in huge profits these days, practically record profits. Why are my colleague and his party not speaking out about the public funds going into the oil and gas companies’ pockets? Could that money not be put to better use addressing Saskatchewanians’ needs?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 136

  1. Private Members' Business Income Tax Act 14 statements
  2. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 32 statements
  3. Government Orders Government Orders 20 statements
  4. Oral Questions The Economy 12 statements
  5. Oral Questions Government Priorities 6 statements
  6. Oral Questions The Economy 15 statements
  7. Oral Questions Climate Change 4 statements
  8. Oral Questions Seniors 6 statements
  9. Oral Questions Access to Information 6 statements
  10. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions The Economy 11 statements
  12. Oral Questions Health 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions Public Safety 6 statements
  14. Oral Questions Youth 2 statements
  15. Oral Questions Public Safety 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 4 statements
  17. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  18. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 31 statements
  19. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 50 statements
  20. Government Orders Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on Bill C-30 41 statements
  21. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 37 statements
  22. Government Orders Combatting Hate Act 38 statements