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 .
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“Our government wants to spend billions more on the military to reach our defence spending goal. I want the Conservatives to tell us if they support spending this money or if they want to cut it.”
“Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to the previous speaker from the Conservative Party about military defence and how much money we are investing in the military. We are talking about an addition of billions of dollars. By doing that, Canada would meet its 2% target. That is something that is very important for us as a government. When I asked the previous Conservative member whether she supports that, she completely sidestepped the question. I do believe that Canadians have a right to know this: Does the Conservative Party support the financial addition of the billions of dollars that we would invest, over and above? Does the Conservative Party support it, or does it believe we should cut that back? Do the Conservatives support making it 2% of the GDP?”
Mr. Speaker, I posed a question to the previous speaker from the Conservative Party about military defence and how much money we are investing in the military. We are talking about an addition of billions of dollars. By doing that, Canada would meet its 2% target. That is something that is very important for us as a government. When I asked the previous Conservative member whether she supports that, she completely sidestepped the question. I do believe that Canadians have a right to know this: Does the Conservative Party support the financial addition of the billions of dollars that we would invest, over and above? Does the Conservative Party support it, or does it believe we should cut that back? Do the Conservatives support making it 2% of the GDP?
Loses points more than most for Hidden agency×2.7Vague promise×1.9Aside×1.6Loses points less than most for AnecdoteOff point
Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
LiberalLib
“I want us to pass this budget bill. Conservatives delayed it in committee just to get concessions on a different bill. Canada's economy is doing well, our deficit is manageable, and we are meeting our defence spending goals.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. It is my turn to speak to Bill C-30, which seeks to implement the economic update. I want to address several issues, but, first, I want to talk about why we are doing things a bit differently here today. Last week, at the Standing Committee on Finance, on which I serve, the Conservative members used some pretty intense filibustering tactics during the study of C-30. What I found especially shocking was that the Conservatives themselves admitted that this filibustering had nothing to do with any specific concerns about this bill but everything to do with winning concessions on another bill, Bill C-22. They said so themselves. They made it very clear. To get concessions on Bill C-22, they were prepared to filibuster, change everything and take as long as necessary to achieve that goal. This filibuster was clearly deliberate, especially given how much of the committee’s time was spent on a single clause and on an amendment moved by the Conservatives themselves. They then moved subamendment after subamendment. They used a very clear tactic: These subamendments were drafted in English only. We had to wait for them to be translated before work could resume. We can see the mechanism at play. Also, the Conservatives’ discussions on these subamendments involved a lot of repetition and many digressions that had very little to do with the matter at hand. That also contributed to delays. In any event, we spent hours and hours on it. It quickly became clear that no progress was going to be made at all. That is a big problem because Bill C-30 is so important. It concerns the April 28 economic update, which contains a number of very useful and very important measures for our economy. I suspect I may run out of time, but before I talk about those measures, I want to address a few problems that have been mentioned today in the conversations and in the debates that we have had here so far. For example, as of the end of the fiscal year, March 31, Canada had met the target of 2% of GDP for spending and investments in national defence. That was confirmed by NATO itself, and it is something that Canada had not done in a very long time. Liberal and Conservative governments kept national defence spending at 1% or 1.5% of GDP. We very quickly and practically reached the 2% target, and we committed to allocating 5% of GDP to national defence by 2035. That is a very significant commitment. We are making this commitment because the world is a different place now. Today, our situation is very delicate. Our biggest trade and economic partner is also our neighbour: the United States. It is a partner that has very plainly and clearly told us that it does not need what Canada has to offer. We could discuss that at great length. It does not need anything except our energy, our aluminum and other resources. The Americans imposed a number of sector-based tariffs, which is not entirely consistent with CUSMA requirements, but they did it anyway to put the Canadian government under a lot of pressure. They really want to put a lot of pressure on the economy to force us into making all sorts of concessions, to the point where our own sovereignty is at risk. That is why we are investing heavily in defence. It is also why we are going to keep strengthening ties with reliable, dependable and predictable partners. That said, it is also clear that 70% of our exports go to the United States. Our neighbour will always be our neighbour. We cannot change geography. We still have good relationships with American businesses and the American people. We are going to maintain those relationships. We have also committed to doubling our non-U.S. exports. Let us look at the reasoning behind that. Even if we can double the 30% of our exports going to non-U.S. countries, and I think we will get there, 40% to 50% of our exports will still be going to the United States. It will still be important to maintain our trade relationship with the United States. That is why we are still committed to updating CUSMA. That work continues, despite the obstacles the administration sometimes puts in our way. We remain focused on that, but we need to have a broader perspective on all of this. It is important to point out one other thing that is very clear in the economic update. Our colleagues opposite keep saying that we are running huge deficits, that we are heading straight for a wall and that things are not working. Our colleagues sometimes paint a rather apocalyptic picture. Let us review some basic facts. Our deficit stands at 2.1% of GDP, which is entirely manageable. Canada’s public debt is equally manageable. In fact, that is why our AAA credit rating is being maintained. If Canada were truly a country on the brink of ruin, how could we still have a AAA credit rating? I will conclude on this point. How is it that long-term bond yields, for example 10-year yields, are around 3.5%? That is roughly 100 basis points, or one percentage point, lower than in the United States. If we are as broke as our colleagues opposite claim, why are interest rates on the financial markets still so favourable in Canada? We are on the right track. We are going to diversify our economy and continue to sign trade agreements.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time. It is my turn to speak to Bill C-30, which seeks to implement the economic update. I want to address several issues, but, first, I want to talk about why we are doing things a bit differently here today. Last week, at the Standing Committee on Finance, on which I serve, the Conservative members used some pretty intense filibustering tactics during the study of C-30. What I found especially shocking was that the Conservatives themselves admitted that this filibustering had nothing to do with any specific concerns about this bill but everything to do with winning concessions on another bill, Bill C-22. They said so themselves. They made it very clear. To get concessions on Bill C-22, they were prepared to filibuster, change everything and take as long as necessary to achieve that goal. This filibuster was clearly deliberate, especially given how much of the committee’s time was spent on a single clause and on an amendment moved by the Conservatives themselves. They then moved subamendment after subamendment. They used a very clear tactic: These subamendments were drafted in English only. We had to wait for them to be translated before work could resume. We can see the mechanism at play. Also, the Conservatives’ discussions on these subamendments involved a lot of repetition and many digressions that had very little to do with the matter at hand. That also contributed to delays. In any event, we spent hours and hours on it. It quickly became clear that no progress was going to be made at all. That is a big problem because Bill C-30 is so important. It concerns the April 28 economic update, which contains a number of very useful and very important measures for our economy. I suspect I may run out of time, but before I talk about those measures, I want to address a few problems that have been mentioned today in the conversations and in the debates that we have had here so far. For example, as of the end of the fiscal year, March 31, Canada had met the target of 2% of GDP for spending and investments in national defence. That was confirmed by NATO itself, and it is something that Canada had not done in a very long time. Liberal and Conservative governments kept national defence spending at 1% or 1.5% of GDP. We very quickly and practically reached the 2% target, and we committed to allocating 5% of GDP to national defence by 2035. That is a very significant commitment. We are making this commitment because the world is a different place now. Today, our situation is very delicate. Our biggest trade and economic partner is also our neighbour: the United States. It is a partner that has very plainly and clearly told us that it does not need what Canada has to offer. We could discuss that at great length. It does not need anything except our energy, our aluminum and other resources. The Americans imposed a number of sector-based tariffs, which is not entirely consistent with CUSMA requirements, but they did it anyway to put the Canadian government under a lot of pressure. They really want to put a lot of pressure on the economy to force us into making all sorts of concessions, to the point where our own sovereignty is at risk. That is why we are investing heavily in defence. It is also why we are going to keep strengthening ties with reliable, dependable and predictable partners. That said, it is also clear that 70% of our exports go to the United States. Our neighbour will always be our neighbour. We cannot change geography. We still have good relationships with American businesses and the American people. We are going to maintain those relationships. We have also committed to doubling our non-U.S. exports. Let us look at the reasoning behind that. Even if we can double the 30% of our exports going to non-U.S. countries, and I think we will get there, 40% to 50% of our exports will still be going to the United States. It will still be important to maintain our trade relationship with the United States. That is why we are still committed to updating CUSMA. That work continues, despite the obstacles the administration sometimes puts in our way. We remain focused on that, but we need to have a broader perspective on all of this. It is important to point out one other thing that is very clear in the economic update. Our colleagues opposite keep saying that we are running huge deficits, that we are heading straight for a wall and that things are not working. Our colleagues sometimes paint a rather apocalyptic picture. Let us review some basic facts. Our deficit stands at 2.1% of GDP, which is entirely manageable. Canada’s public debt is equally manageable. In fact, that is why our AAA credit rating is being maintained. If Canada were truly a country on the brink of ruin, how could we still have a AAA credit rating? I will conclude on this point. How is it that long-term bond yields, for example 10-year yields, are around 3.5%? That is roughly 100 basis points, or one percentage point, lower than in the United States. If we are as broke as our colleagues opposite claim, why are interest rates on the financial markets still so favourable in Canada? We are on the right track. We are going to diversify our economy and continue to sign trade agreements.
Loses points more than most for Hidden agency×2.7Vague promise×1.9Aside×1.6Loses points less than most for AnecdoteOff point
Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
LiberalLib
“Canada is nowhere near its borrowing limit. We have a top credit rating, lower interest rates than the United States, and financial markets trust us. We will keep working to diversify our economy.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our borrowing capacity is not unlimited. Of course there are limits. However, in Canada, we are still a long way from that limit. Canada continues to have very easy access to financial markets. We have a AAA credit rating. The interest rate on 10-year government bonds is much lower than in the United States. The financial markets have confidence in Canada, and we will remain committed to diversifying the economy.”
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that our borrowing capacity is not unlimited. Of course there are limits. However, in Canada, we are still a long way from that limit. Canada continues to have very easy access to financial markets. We have a AAA credit rating. The interest rate on 10-year government bonds is much lower than in the United States. The financial markets have confidence in Canada, and we will remain committed to diversifying the economy.
Loses points more than most for Hidden agency×2.7Vague promise×1.9Aside×1.6Loses points less than most for AnecdoteOff point
Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
LiberalLib
“We will not give in on culture or supply management in trade talks. We will not sign a bad deal.”
“Mr. Speaker, culture and supply management are issues on which we will not compromise. That is important. We have said it before, we stand by it and that will not change. However, it must also be noted that we have said from the start that a bad deal would be far worse than signing just anything. So far, we have not signed anything precisely because what was presented to us was unacceptable. No, we have not caved. On the contrary, we are standing our ground.”
Mr. Speaker, culture and supply management are issues on which we will not compromise. That is important. We have said it before, we stand by it and that will not change. However, it must also be noted that we have said from the start that a bad deal would be far worse than signing just anything. So far, we have not signed anything precisely because what was presented to us was unacceptable. No, we have not caved. On the contrary, we are standing our ground.
“I want to clarify what the member said. Did the Conservatives delay the finance committee's work during this serious time, and did they only provide their changes to the bill in English?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles. Did I understand my hon. colleague correctly when he said that the official opposition had engaged in filibustering despite the serious challenges we face in Canada and in the Standing Committee on Finance? Furthermore, the amendments they proposed to the bill’s provisions were reportedly made only in English.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague from Laval—Les Îles. Did I understand my hon. colleague correctly when he said that the official opposition had engaged in filibustering despite the serious challenges we face in Canada and in the Standing Committee on Finance? Furthermore, the amendments they proposed to the bill’s provisions were reportedly made only in English.
Loses points more than most for Hidden agency×2.7Vague promise×1.9Aside×1.6Loses points less than most for AnecdoteOff point
Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
LiberalLib
“The Conservatives delayed our work. They only brought forward changes in English, so we had to wait for translations. They also refused to let us keep working on other things while waiting.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. They were subamendments. Every time the Conservative Party proposed a subamendment, the subamendment was always worded in English only, so we had to wait for it to be translated. That was one of the factors that caused the delay in our proceedings. Whenever we asked if we could set that aside and keep working while the translation was being done, we were denied.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is correct. They were subamendments. Every time the Conservative Party proposed a subamendment, the subamendment was always worded in English only, so we had to wait for it to be translated. That was one of the factors that caused the delay in our proceedings. Whenever we asked if we could set that aside and keep working while the translation was being done, we were denied.
Loses points more than most for Hidden agency×2.7Vague promise×1.9Aside×1.6Loses points less than most for AnecdoteOff point
Carlos Leitão, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry
LiberalLib
“We are doing two things at once. We are giving emergency help to workers and businesses, and we are working to change the Canadian economy for the future.”
“Mr. Speaker, this will be a very brief response. Yes, we are working on two parallel tracks, including emergency support for businesses and workers through a variety of programs. We continue to develop new models of emergency assistance, but there is also more fundamental and structural support aimed at transforming the Canadian economy.”
Mr. Speaker, this will be a very brief response. Yes, we are working on two parallel tracks, including emergency support for businesses and workers through a variety of programs. We continue to develop new models of emergency assistance, but there is also more fundamental and structural support aimed at transforming the Canadian economy.
“We are working with Ontario, cities, and builders to lower taxes and fees on new homes. Premier Ford supports this plan, and I want to know if the member agrees with him.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear from the member opposite and to see him back here in Ottawa. Our government is working collaboratively with the Province of Ontario to cut the HST on new homes and cut development charges. We are working with Premier Ford, municipalities and affordable housing providers. There has been a very favourable response from the homebuilding industry. Premier Ford said, “Our government will continue to deliver on our plan to protect Ontario in partnership with the federal government and municipalities by lowering the cost of building, getting shovels in the ground faster, cutting red tape and investing in workers.” Would the member opposite agree with Premier Ford?”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, it is good to hear from the member opposite and to see him back here in Ottawa. Our government is working collaboratively with the Province of Ontario to cut the HST on new homes and cut development charges. We are working with Premier Ford, municipalities and affordable housing providers. There has been a very favourable response from the homebuilding industry. Premier Ford said, “Our government will continue to deliver on our plan to protect Ontario in partnership with the federal government and municipalities by lowering the cost of building, getting shovels in the ground faster, cutting red tape and investing in workers.” Would the member opposite agree with Premier Ford?
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“The opposition parties are playing games to delay our work. If we listen to them, no bills will ever pass. We are going to pass this legislation to serve Canadians anyway.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in her overall assessment, not to mention the member who just spoke. How selective they are in not recognizing that if we were to listen to either one of the members, the legislative process would grind to a halt and nothing would pass. The leader of the Green Party knows that. She can say what she wants, but at the end of the day, there have been many games over the last number of months that clearly demonstrate that. All one needs to do is look at the games that were played just last week, when we had the official opposition, the Conservative Party, agree to sit late and, literally a couple of hours later, vote to adjourn. The silliness we see from across the way prevents legislation. This government is saying we are going to serve Canadians by passing legislation, whether the Conservatives like it or not.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I would disagree with the leader of the Green Party in her overall assessment, not to mention the member who just spoke. How selective they are in not recognizing that if we were to listen to either one of the members, the legislative process would grind to a halt and nothing would pass. The leader of the Green Party knows that. She can say what she wants, but at the end of the day, there have been many games over the last number of months that clearly demonstrate that. All one needs to do is look at the games that were played just last week, when we had the official opposition, the Conservative Party, agree to sit late and, literally a couple of hours later, vote to adjourn. The silliness we see from across the way prevents legislation. This government is saying we are going to serve Canadians by passing legislation, whether the Conservatives like it or not.
“Conservatives are delaying every bill, even the ones they support. We had to force an end to debate on an election bill that everyone voted for.”
“Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member was critical of the parliamentary secretary. He was suggesting that the parliamentary secretary was inaccurate when he said that Conservatives are just filibustering everything. He tried to make the offer that Conservatives come here in good faith. We can look at Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. The reality is that it is a bill that passed the House unanimously, passed committee unanimously and ultimately passed the House unanimously, yet we still had to move time allocation on it. Even with a bill they completely and fully supported, the Conservatives would not let it go through the House. It is a little bit much for the member to stand up and suggest that we are the ones accusing them of games, when, in reality, he knows full well that Conservatives are playing games on every bill, including the bills they support.”
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the hon. member was critical of the parliamentary secretary. He was suggesting that the parliamentary secretary was inaccurate when he said that Conservatives are just filibustering everything. He tried to make the offer that Conservatives come here in good faith. We can look at Bill C-25, the strong and free elections act. The reality is that it is a bill that passed the House unanimously, passed committee unanimously and ultimately passed the House unanimously, yet we still had to move time allocation on it. Even with a bill they completely and fully supported, the Conservatives would not let it go through the House. It is a little bit much for the member to stand up and suggest that we are the ones accusing them of games, when, in reality, he knows full well that Conservatives are playing games on every bill, including the bills they support.
The usual mix, except that they lose points less than most for Motive imputedHidden agencyMockery
Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
LiberalLib
“In our first year, our government has made life more affordable. We cut the carbon tax and fuel taxes, lowered income taxes, and made the school food program permanent. We also gave people more money for groceries and are investing billions of dollars in building major projects across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am actually happy to speak. I am sure my Conservative friends do not mind. Just over a year ago, Canada elected a new prime minister and a new government. With respect to what we have done, I actually ran out of time to expand on it. I would like to amplify a few things we have been able to accomplish in just over a year since Canadians made the decision to elect our current Prime Minister. The very first action taken by the government was actually getting rid of the carbon tax. The second action was to provide a tax break for Canadians. Twenty‑two million Canadians benefited from that tax break. Let us also take a look at one of our social programs the Prime Minister and the government made permanent: the school food program, with 400,000 young children being able to be fed a meal on the school premises. We can also talk about the groceries and essentials benefit changeover, in which we gave a substantive increase to deal with the issue of affordability. The first payment went out just yesterday. We have things such as the break on the gas excise tax, a 10¢‑a‑litre reduction. When we combine that with the carbon tax, we are talking about 25¢ a litre. These are the types of things the government has done, recognizing the importance of affordability and working towards giving a break to Canadians. Let us take a look at some of the economic measures we have been able to put into place. I am thinking of the one Canadian economy, which is something I was able to expand on during my previous intervention. Then we can take a look at the major projects. What I did not highlight about the major projects is that, if we think of it in terms of the amount of money, investment in capital, in infrastructure in every region of our great nation, we will see that we are going into well in excess of $120 billion. It is happening in every region. When we take a look at it from our perspective, we are establishing a goal of five years and $1 trillion of overall capital investment into Canada’s economic trading opportunities and so forth. We are also investing in the Canadian military and recognizing the importance of establishing a sovereignty fund. These are part of what we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time. There is a lot more to come as the Prime Minister and government move forward.”
Official Hansard
Mr. Speaker, I am actually happy to speak. I am sure my Conservative friends do not mind. Just over a year ago, Canada elected a new prime minister and a new government. With respect to what we have done, I actually ran out of time to expand on it. I would like to amplify a few things we have been able to accomplish in just over a year since Canadians made the decision to elect our current Prime Minister. The very first action taken by the government was actually getting rid of the carbon tax. The second action was to provide a tax break for Canadians. Twenty‑two million Canadians benefited from that tax break. Let us also take a look at one of our social programs the Prime Minister and the government made permanent: the school food program, with 400,000 young children being able to be fed a meal on the school premises. We can also talk about the groceries and essentials benefit changeover, in which we gave a substantive increase to deal with the issue of affordability. The first payment went out just yesterday. We have things such as the break on the gas excise tax, a 10¢‑a‑litre reduction. When we combine that with the carbon tax, we are talking about 25¢ a litre. These are the types of things the government has done, recognizing the importance of affordability and working towards giving a break to Canadians. Let us take a look at some of the economic measures we have been able to put into place. I am thinking of the one Canadian economy, which is something I was able to expand on during my previous intervention. Then we can take a look at the major projects. What I did not highlight about the major projects is that, if we think of it in terms of the amount of money, investment in capital, in infrastructure in every region of our great nation, we will see that we are going into well in excess of $120 billion. It is happening in every region. When we take a look at it from our perspective, we are establishing a goal of five years and $1 trillion of overall capital investment into Canada’s economic trading opportunities and so forth. We are also investing in the Canadian military and recognizing the importance of establishing a sovereignty fund. These are part of what we have been able to accomplish in a relatively short period of time. There is a lot more to come as the Prime Minister and government move forward.
