Bill C-30, Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act · Closure motion · now law Where it stands
The debate was on a motion to stop further adjournment of debate on Bill C-30, the Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act, which includes tax measures such as changes to the labour deduction for tradespeople, a temporary cut to the excise tax on gasoline and diesel, and changes to employment insurance, the Canada Pension Plan and other laws. Liberal members said the bill funds priorities like trade unions, a sovereign wealth fund and small craft harbours, and argued that a roughly 30-hour delay at the finance committee meant it was time to vote. Conservative members said they were not stalling but asking necessary questions in committee, that the bill changes many laws and needs more study, and objected to the government limiting debate in a minority Parliament. Elizabeth May also spoke against the routine use of time allocation and raised concerns about parts of the bill not covered in the economic plan, such as pesticide rules.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .
20 statements
“I want the House to keep debating this and not delay it any further.”
“Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 12, I move: That the debate be not further adjourned.”
Madam Speaker, in relation to the consideration of Government Business No. 12, I move: That the debate be not further adjourned.
“We need to move forward with this bill to help the economy. The committee has spent almost 30 hours delaying it, and we need to move on.”
“Madam Speaker, I do respect the member opposite, despite the many differences we have. However, we are here to deliver for Canadians. We are here to move our agenda forward, fighting to build our economy for Canadians. In the finance committee, there has been an almost 30-hour filibuster over the last week. We need to move on. We need to move forward for Canadians.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 41 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, I do respect the member opposite, despite the many differences we have. However, we are here to deliver for Canadians. We are here to move our agenda forward, fighting to build our economy for Canadians. In the finance committee, there has been an almost 30-hour filibuster over the last week. We need to move on. We need to move forward for Canadians.
“This bill has good things for Canadians, including money for trade unions, small harbours, and a wealth fund. We need to pass it to rebuild our economy.”
“Madam Speaker, it is two for two. I respect the member very much, too. She was my seatmate in the last Parliament. The spring economic update contains many great things for Canadians: billions of dollars for trade unions, the sovereign wealth fund and money for small craft harbours. We have an agenda, and we need to deliver for Canadians. We need to rebuild, restructure and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.”
Madam Speaker, it is two for two. I respect the member very much, too. She was my seatmate in the last Parliament. The spring economic update contains many great things for Canadians: billions of dollars for trade unions, the sovereign wealth fund and money for small craft harbours. We have an agenda, and we need to deliver for Canadians. We need to rebuild, restructure and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.
“Conservatives are delaying this bill for other reasons. We were elected to help Canadians with the cost of living and to build the economy, and we plan to do that.”
“Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting on committees for almost a decade, and we know when we are moving government committee business forward and when we are not. I know many Conservatives have admitted that the filibuster is not really even about Bill C-30 but about another issue. Again, we were elected on an agenda to provide leadership and affordability to Canadians and to build and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 26 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisReply to a debate question
Signal 34 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, I had the privilege of sitting on committees for almost a decade, and we know when we are moving government committee business forward and when we are not. I know many Conservatives have admitted that the filibuster is not really even about Bill C-30 but about another issue. Again, we were elected on an agenda to provide leadership and affordability to Canadians and to build and retool our economy, and we are going to do just that.
“Committees do important work, but spending over 30 hours delaying a bill is not productive. Canadians want us to move forward and build a strong economy.”
“Madam Speaker, as I said before, I had the privilege of being on committees for over a decade in this place, and so much important work is done by committees. It is vital to our democracy. However, when the committee had over 30 hours of a filibuster last week, that is not productive. The member opposite also talked about the calls, emails and visits to constituency offices. I had some time in my constituency office late Friday afternoon. Canadians want us to move forward. Canadians want us to build our economy strong, and we are going to do just that.”
Madam Speaker, as I said before, I had the privilege of being on committees for over a decade in this place, and so much important work is done by committees. It is vital to our democracy. However, when the committee had over 30 hours of a filibuster last week, that is not productive. The member opposite also talked about the calls, emails and visits to constituency offices. I had some time in my constituency office late Friday afternoon. Canadians want us to move forward. Canadians want us to build our economy strong, and we are going to do just that.
“Canadians keep voting for our government because we lead well. The opposition stays on the other side because they do not offer real solutions.”
“Madam Speaker, we are here to deliver for Canadians. Again, I have sat on committees. We know when committees are productive and functioning well. Yes, the opposition has a role to play for sure. We should be challenged. I will say that I have been here through the elections of 2015, 2019, 2021 and 2025. We have been in government and are now into our 11th year. Canadians have spoken again. Canadians want real leadership. The members opposite at times wonder why they sit on that side. Some of them have been over there for 11 years or longer. It is because they are not offering viable solutions, a viable government for Canadians. Canadians have spoken.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 12 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, we are here to deliver for Canadians. Again, I have sat on committees. We know when committees are productive and functioning well. Yes, the opposition has a role to play for sure. We should be challenged. I will say that I have been here through the elections of 2015, 2019, 2021 and 2025. We have been in government and are now into our 11th year. Canadians have spoken again. Canadians want real leadership. The members opposite at times wonder why they sit on that side. Some of them have been over there for 11 years or longer. It is because they are not offering viable solutions, a viable government for Canadians. Canadians have spoken.
“The Conservatives complain that we are cutting off debate on this bill, but they wasted almost 30 hours stalling in committee. We had to end the debate because they are not serious about passing laws.”
“Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the hypocrisy that we are hearing today from members opposite, who complain about debate being contracted here in the House when they wasted almost 30 hours of time in committee, filibustering with eight subamendments just on lowering CPP contributions. That kind of behaviour is a waste of time, taxpayer money and the resources of this House, which are valuable in committee and could have been used to debate this legislation. Here we are in the House, having to move closure. Why? It is because Conservatives are not serious about getting legislation done, and when they have the opportunity, they waste it. Could my colleague speak to the hypocrisy that we experience here in the House?”
Madam Speaker, I wanted to ask my hon. colleague to comment on the hypocrisy that we are hearing today from members opposite, who complain about debate being contracted here in the House when they wasted almost 30 hours of time in committee, filibustering with eight subamendments just on lowering CPP contributions. That kind of behaviour is a waste of time, taxpayer money and the resources of this House, which are valuable in committee and could have been used to debate this legislation. Here we are in the House, having to move closure. Why? It is because Conservatives are not serious about getting legislation done, and when they have the opportunity, they waste it. Could my colleague speak to the hypocrisy that we experience here in the House?
“The Conservatives are wasting time to block our budget bill. This bill helps the economy by funding trade unions, a wealth fund, and small craft harbours.”
“Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for his tremendous leadership in this House and on the finance committee. He is absolutely correct. I would ask Canadians to tune in to ParlVU or CPAC to watch the filibuster that occurred last week, where opposition members were talking about elephants and everything else under the sun. That is not a serious government. That is not serious opposition. We are here to deliver. Our spring economic update contains things that are vital to grow our Canadian economy: billions of dollars for trade unions, a sovereign wealth fund and $1 billion for small craft harbours. The Conservatives are getting in the way. We are here to produce for Canadians.”
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance for his tremendous leadership in this House and on the finance committee. He is absolutely correct. I would ask Canadians to tune in to ParlVU or CPAC to watch the filibuster that occurred last week, where opposition members were talking about elephants and everything else under the sun. That is not a serious government. That is not serious opposition. We are here to deliver. Our spring economic update contains things that are vital to grow our Canadian economy: billions of dollars for trade unions, a sovereign wealth fund and $1 billion for small craft harbours. The Conservatives are getting in the way. We are here to produce for Canadians.
“Labour unions support our government, not the opposition. We have spent billions of dollars on the trades and are funding major building projects across the country.”
“Madam Speaker, that member and I both came to this House in 2015 and have advocated for Canadians since then. However, that member is sadly mistaken when it comes to trade unions and their support for their government. If we look at Canadian Building Trades Unions and the IBEW, and the list goes on and on, they are standing with our government. We announced billions of dollars for trades and retraining. Trade unions stand with our government. The trade unions want to build Canada. Trade unions are totally impressed with the major projects that we are announcing, the projects that we are going to build from coast to coast to coast. If members of the opposition party want to stand up and say they are the party of unions, I think they are sadly mistaken. Unions will speak volumes about that.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 44 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, that member and I both came to this House in 2015 and have advocated for Canadians since then. However, that member is sadly mistaken when it comes to trade unions and their support for their government. If we look at Canadian Building Trades Unions and the IBEW, and the list goes on and on, they are standing with our government. We announced billions of dollars for trades and retraining. Trade unions stand with our government. The trade unions want to build Canada. Trade unions are totally impressed with the major projects that we are announcing, the projects that we are going to build from coast to coast to coast. If members of the opposition party want to stand up and say they are the party of unions, I think they are sadly mistaken. Unions will speak volumes about that.
“The opposition says they are not wasting time, but they told a story about an elephant instead of talking about housing. I want the minister to address how they are delaying money that people need to build homes.”
“Madam Speaker, earlier a member of the opposition talked about the fact that they were not filibustering, yet she was the one who actually told the story about an elephant in a discussion of Bill C-30, where there is money that has to go out to people who need more housing in a faster way. Could the minister talk about the fact that while opposition members continue to say we are stopping debate, they are talking about elephants in a debate about money that needs to go out for the construction of housing?”
Madam Speaker, earlier a member of the opposition talked about the fact that they were not filibustering, yet she was the one who actually told the story about an elephant in a discussion of Bill C-30, where there is money that has to go out to people who need more housing in a faster way. Could the minister talk about the fact that while opposition members continue to say we are stopping debate, they are talking about elephants in a debate about money that needs to go out for the construction of housing?
“The opposition has delayed this bill for 30 hours. We need to stop debating and pass it so we can help the economy.”
“Madam Speaker, the opposition has a role to play in our democracy and in our government. That party has been in opposition going into its 11th straight year now. There comes a point in time when debate has to stop, such as, for example, when members are talking about elephants or when there has been 30 hours of filibuster. We are here to move forward. We are here to build our economy. The spring economic update contains so many things that Canadians want and need. When trade unions call my office and I talk to them about 30 hours of filibuster resulting in programs that cannot move forward, they are upset. They want us to build Canada strong.”
A repeated line
“They want us to build Canada strong.”
Said 3 times by 2 members since May 1.
Every time it was saidMadam Speaker, the opposition has a role to play in our democracy and in our government. That party has been in opposition going into its 11th straight year now. There comes a point in time when debate has to stop, such as, for example, when members are talking about elephants or when there has been 30 hours of filibuster. We are here to move forward. We are here to build our economy. The spring economic update contains so many things that Canadians want and need. When trade unions call my office and I talk to them about 30 hours of filibuster resulting in programs that cannot move forward, they are upset. They want us to build Canada strong.
“Major pension funds want to invest in our country, and we are investing in housing, defence, and building projects. The opposition needs to stop delaying our work so we can build the economy.”
“Madam Speaker, I also met with the maple eight pension funds. The maple eight pension funds want us to get going to build our economy. They want to invest in Canada. Capital follows its easiest path, and right now, we are building major projects, investing in defence, investing in aerospace, investing in housing and investing in infrastructure. We are here to build an economy that is strong for all Canadians. It is time for that member, and that party, to stop the filibuster. Let us get to work. Let us build Canada.”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 46 of 100
None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, I also met with the maple eight pension funds. The maple eight pension funds want us to get going to build our economy. They want to invest in Canada. Capital follows its easiest path, and right now, we are building major projects, investing in defence, investing in aerospace, investing in housing and investing in infrastructure. We are here to build an economy that is strong for all Canadians. It is time for that member, and that party, to stop the filibuster. Let us get to work. Let us build Canada.
“We have debated this bill enough, and it is time to vote. The opposition is just stalling to stop us from making decisions.”
“Madam Speaker, I find some of the comments from the official opposition interesting, especially when comments are made that 30 hours of debate is not enough. I agree that we want to raise different perspectives. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have a diversity of perspectives. They want to hear us having meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Commons, as well as in committee, but they also remind me that we are not just here to talk things out and to debate. We need to make decisions. Canadians made a decision to send the Liberal government to Ottawa to govern the country and respond to the challenges we are facing. Can the secretary of state just reaffirm the importance of making decisions and calling the question on votes so we can be productive? The opposition has the ability to ensure that members can be heard, but they refuse to share how many members want to speak because they are derailing the conversation rather than staying focused. Why is it that these tools constantly need to be used?”
Madam Speaker, I find some of the comments from the official opposition interesting, especially when comments are made that 30 hours of debate is not enough. I agree that we want to raise different perspectives. Constituents in the riding of Waterloo have a diversity of perspectives. They want to hear us having meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Commons, as well as in committee, but they also remind me that we are not just here to talk things out and to debate. We need to make decisions. Canadians made a decision to send the Liberal government to Ottawa to govern the country and respond to the challenges we are facing. Can the secretary of state just reaffirm the importance of making decisions and calling the question on votes so we can be productive? The opposition has the ability to ensure that members can be heard, but they refuse to share how many members want to speak because they are derailing the conversation rather than staying focused. Why is it that these tools constantly need to be used?
“The opposition is wasting time trying to delay our work. We were elected to fix the economy, make life more affordable, and pass our budget bill.”
“Madam Speaker, we were elected just over a year ago with the mandate to restructure, rebuild, refocus, diversify, build new trading relationships and strengthen our economy to move from reliance to resilience. We have a job to do. Canadians are watching. Again, I ask Canadians from coast to coast to watch the filibuster from last week and to tell me if it is productive or a great use of committee time. It is not. We have a job to do. We have things in the spring economic update, such as billions for unions, the sovereign wealth fund and small craft harbours. The list goes on and on. We are going to focus on Canadians. We are going to focus on delivering affordability, rebuilding and retooling our economy. That is what we are elected to do.”
Madam Speaker, we were elected just over a year ago with the mandate to restructure, rebuild, refocus, diversify, build new trading relationships and strengthen our economy to move from reliance to resilience. We have a job to do. Canadians are watching. Again, I ask Canadians from coast to coast to watch the filibuster from last week and to tell me if it is productive or a great use of committee time. It is not. We have a job to do. We have things in the spring economic update, such as billions for unions, the sovereign wealth fund and small craft harbours. The list goes on and on. We are going to focus on Canadians. We are going to focus on delivering affordability, rebuilding and retooling our economy. That is what we are elected to do.
“We need to end the debate and pass this bill. The Conservatives have delayed it for 30 hours, and it helps unions, small craft harbours, and our economy.”
“Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe that we are in our 11th year in this great place advocating on behalf of Canadians. We remember the last Parliament. We remember how it was bogged down and obstructed. We could not move forward for Canadians. We could not move forward with legislation. I come from the private sector. I believe good leadership needs to be challenged. There is no question about that, but there comes a point when, after 30 hours of filibuster, somebody has to call it and say we need to move forward, because if we did not have the opportunity to move forward, the Conservatives would absolutely obstruct this legislation and we would not be able to pass the spring economic update, Bill C-30, to deliver for unions, small craft harbours and Canadians. Our Prime Minister was elected over a year ago. He is a world-class diplomat. He is a world-class economic and business leader. He was elected, and we were elected, to build our economy, diversify our economy and deliver for Canadians.”
Madam Speaker, it is hard to believe that we are in our 11th year in this great place advocating on behalf of Canadians. We remember the last Parliament. We remember how it was bogged down and obstructed. We could not move forward for Canadians. We could not move forward with legislation. I come from the private sector. I believe good leadership needs to be challenged. There is no question about that, but there comes a point when, after 30 hours of filibuster, somebody has to call it and say we need to move forward, because if we did not have the opportunity to move forward, the Conservatives would absolutely obstruct this legislation and we would not be able to pass the spring economic update, Bill C-30, to deliver for unions, small craft harbours and Canadians. Our Prime Minister was elected over a year ago. He is a world-class diplomat. He is a world-class economic and business leader. He was elected, and we were elected, to build our economy, diversify our economy and deliver for Canadians.
“We need to stop debating and move forward. Our plan will help the economy and lower costs for Canadians. The Conservatives have delayed this debate for 30 hours, and it is time to get back to work.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her advocacy on behalf of Canadians, although I do not agree. We are here with an agenda to deliver for Canadians. We are here to rebuild, refocus, diversify our trading partners and build new trade relationships. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians. We are here to build our economy from coast to coast to coast. We are here for east-west trade, not north-south trade. Maybe it is because of my business background from before I was in this great place, but I think there is a point when we can listen to opposition. Good leadership needs to be challenged, absolutely, but there is also a point when it is not productive any longer. The Conservatives know that. We have had 30 hours of filibuster talking about elephants and everything under the sun. Conservatives know it. Canadians know it. We know it. It is time to move on, and we are going to do just that.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 33 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for her advocacy on behalf of Canadians, although I do not agree. We are here with an agenda to deliver for Canadians. We are here to rebuild, refocus, diversify our trading partners and build new trade relationships. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians. We are here to build our economy from coast to coast to coast. We are here for east-west trade, not north-south trade. Maybe it is because of my business background from before I was in this great place, but I think there is a point when we can listen to opposition. Good leadership needs to be challenged, absolutely, but there is also a point when it is not productive any longer. The Conservatives know that. We have had 30 hours of filibuster talking about elephants and everything under the sun. Conservatives know it. Canadians know it. We know it. It is time to move on, and we are going to do just that.
“We need to move forward with our plans and pass our bills. The opposition wasted thirty hours blocking work in the finance committee. We need to cut taxes, build the economy, and invest in Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, number one, we were elected to do a job for Canadians. Number two, we want to focus on moving our agenda forward; that is important. Number three, what has happened over the last week with respect to the finance committee and the 30 hours of filibuster is not productive. Again, I ask Canadians to tune in to watch it if they can suffer through the filibuster like the members on our side have had to. There comes a point when we have to show leadership, make tough decisions and do what needs to be done for Canadians. We are going to build our economy. We are going to cut taxes. We are going to invest in Canadians. We are going to build major projects. We are going to invest in infrastructure, outer space and defence; you name it. We are going to retool this economy. We are going to restructure this economy, one step and one day at a time, and we are going to build Canada strong.”
Reply to a debate question
Clarity 35 of 100
Much of this statement used imprecise wording, lacked details on timing or responsibility, or made broad claims without support.
See full analysisA repeated line
“We are going to build Canada strong.”
Said 33 times by 14 members since April 24.
Every time it was saidMadam Speaker, number one, we were elected to do a job for Canadians. Number two, we want to focus on moving our agenda forward; that is important. Number three, what has happened over the last week with respect to the finance committee and the 30 hours of filibuster is not productive. Again, I ask Canadians to tune in to watch it if they can suffer through the filibuster like the members on our side have had to. There comes a point when we have to show leadership, make tough decisions and do what needs to be done for Canadians. We are going to build our economy. We are going to cut taxes. We are going to invest in Canadians. We are going to build major projects. We are going to invest in infrastructure, outer space and defence; you name it. We are going to retool this economy. We are going to restructure this economy, one step and one day at a time, and we are going to build Canada strong.
“The member has served here for 12 years now. I agree with him that the cost of food is a problem.”
“Madam Speaker, that member too came into this great place in 2015. An hon. member: No. Hon. Wayne Long: No? Was it 2014? An hon. member: The last remaining member. Hon. Wayne Long: Well, I stand corrected. You have been over there for 12 years now. Madam Speaker, I would agree with him that food affordability—”
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysisMadam Speaker, that member too came into this great place in 2015. An hon. member: No. Hon. Wayne Long: No? Was it 2014? An hon. member: The last remaining member. Hon. Wayne Long: Well, I stand corrected. You have been over there for 12 years now. Madam Speaker, I would agree with him that food affordability—
“We care about the high cost of food. High prices are a problem worldwide, but world food prices are starting to drop. We are helping Canadians by giving them extra money for groceries and essentials.”
“Madam Speaker, of course we are concerned about food affordability. Canadians are concerned with food affordability. For the first time in a long time, world food prices started to drop last month. There has been an affordability issue around the world, and we are stepping up for Canadians at a time when they need it the most. We just launched and announced our groceries and essentials benefit. About a week and a half ago, I was in Halifax to announce the one-time 50% top-up. On this side of the House, we are not about blaming everybody else and throwing our hands up with no concrete solutions. We are here to deliver. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians, and we are going to do just that.”
Madam Speaker, of course we are concerned about food affordability. Canadians are concerned with food affordability. For the first time in a long time, world food prices started to drop last month. There has been an affordability issue around the world, and we are stepping up for Canadians at a time when they need it the most. We just launched and announced our groceries and essentials benefit. About a week and a half ago, I was in Halifax to announce the one-time 50% top-up. On this side of the House, we are not about blaming everybody else and throwing our hands up with no concrete solutions. We are here to deliver. We are here to deliver affordability for Canadians, and we are going to do just that.
“The opposition is wasting time by stalling this debate for 30 hours. Canadians want us to stop delaying and get to work.”
“Madam Speaker, I come from the private sector. This type of filibuster, 30 hours of basically producing nothing for Canadians, is not acceptable. Canadians see it. Canadians know it. I know that here in the Ottawa bubble, people think that it is okay and that Canadians accept it. They do not accept it. They want us to move forward. They want us to build Canada strong.”
Reply to a debate question
Signal 31 of 100
Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.
See full analysisA repeated line
“They want us to build Canada strong.”
Said 3 times by 2 members since May 1.
Every time it was saidMadam Speaker, I come from the private sector. This type of filibuster, 30 hours of basically producing nothing for Canadians, is not acceptable. Canadians see it. Canadians know it. I know that here in the Ottawa bubble, people think that it is okay and that Canadians accept it. They do not accept it. They want us to move forward. They want us to build Canada strong.
