Translate Politics Parliament in plain language.

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

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 .

Official text

32 statements

Wayne Long

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Marilène Gill

Bloc Québécois
“The government is bad at managing its time and is rushing our debates. It acts like a dictator by cutting our work short. If it organized its schedule better, we would not have to hurry through our business at the end of every session.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I must say that this is fascinating. I too am a member of the opposition in the House and have been for 11 years. As my colleague said earlier, the Conservatives have been in opposition for 11 years. The Bloc Québécois will always be in opposition. The opposition is necessary. The opposition stops the government from becoming a dictatorship, although it has been acting like a dictator in committee ever since it secured its majority and got to set the agenda. We are also seeing dictatorial behaviour in the House, where the government wants to cut our debates short. I think that there is a fundamental problem in the House, and I have been experiencing it for 11 years: The government has a hard time managing its legislative agenda. If it were more organized, we would not be forced to rush through business at the end of every session under the threat of not being able to go home. I think that this is disrespectful to the public. They do not expect us to rush through our work. They expect us to manage our time properly. Take today, for example. If we had simply started with Bill C-9 this morning and debated Motion No. 12 after question period, we would have saved two hours. That would have given the government two extra hours for its legislative agenda. In my opinion, the government is having a hard time being efficient. We were discussing heat recovery earlier. If only we had a time recovery system, we could be more productive not only for all members of the House, but also for the public. That would be nice. I offer that as food for thought for my colleague across the aisle.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Wayne Long

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Laila Goodridge

Conservative

Linked statement

“The government is cutting debate short on this bill after only one hour. They cannot manage the House schedule, and now they are rushing this through. This bill spends billions of dollars, and we need time to debate it.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, we are seeing here a heavy-handed Liberal government that has decided that, because it is unable to manage the time of the House and because it is unable to bring forward legislation in a timely manner, it is going to use the hammer to curtail debate. We have seen an hour of debate on this particular bill in the chamber, and the Liberals’ answer is to speed this through so we cannot have an adequate debate on the bill. They are trying to use every excuse in the book, but the reality is that, when we started sitting, we had effectively no bills for a very long period of time, and that is on the Liberals. They cannot get bills out for us to have time to debate them. It is not on the opposition for holding them accountable and saying that we deserve to have debate. This is a lot of money being spent. Does the minister not believe that Canadians deserve to have actual conversations and debate on bills in this chamber, specifically when we are spending billions of dollars for Canadians, yes or no?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Wayne Long

Liberal
“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.”

  • 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 analysis
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis

Elizabeth May

Green
“I want the government to slow down and stop rushing this budget bill through. It hides big changes, like letting dangerous pesticides be used for economic reasons, that have barely been studied or debated.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, over the course of this debate, I have heard a number of things said that need to be referenced. As my hon. friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake pointed out, we have actually had one hour, or maybe a bit more by now, for the programming motion we are debating right now, and now we have closure on that programming motion, which is all about speeding things up. The hon. member says that the government was elected and “we were elected”. I remember the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie pointing out that climate change was mentioned 28 times in what the government was elected to do. Pipelines were not mentioned once. I will remind the hon. member that, in the spring economic statement, there is no reference at all to deciding that, if a pesticide is considered too dangerous for use, that decision can be overturned for economic reasons. That is now buried in an omnibus budget bill that only got studied at the finance committee and, even there, very briefly. That is not due to the Conservative filibuster, but to the priority of the whole committee in what witnesses got called. Therefore, I beg of the government to not push this through without taking the time necessary, to not push through those buried bits in the omnibus budget bill without any real discussion or debate.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A+ View analysis

Wayne Long

Liberal
“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.”

  • 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 analysis

  • A repeated line

    “We are going to build Canada strong.”

    Said 33 times by 14 members since April 24.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C+ View analysis

John Barlow

Conservative
“We need more time to debate this budget bill. It harms Canadian food production and makes groceries more expensive, especially by closing research farms and ignoring food transport in trade deals.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is great to see you back in the chair today. It is a sight for sore eyes. In my colleague’s comments, he was talking about trade, not just north and south but east and west, even though our trading partner to the south of us is the most important trading partner for our economy, and the Liberals are turning their backs on it. Regarding the east-west comment, the member knows that food transportation was exempt from the Liberals Canadian free trade agreement. We are talking about food affordability and food production and the importance of that issue. We have not had an opportunity to even talk about that and why it is exempt from their Canadian free trade agreement, when they are closing down seven critical research centres and experimental farms, which again will impact food affordability and food production here in Canada. The Prime Minister himself spoke of food sovereignty and how a country that is unable to feed itself has few options. Well, we have hardly been able to scratch the surface of the impact that the decisions in this budget bill would have on food production and food affordability in Canada. Would the member not agree that food affordability is a top priority for all Canadians, and worth some time to discuss?

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A View analysis

Wayne Long

Liberal
“The member has served here for 12 years now. I agree with him that the cost of food is a problem.”

  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 100 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

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—

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B+ View analysis

Wayne Long

Liberal
“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.”
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade B View analysis

Jean-Denis Garon

Bloc Québécois
“The government is cutting off debate on this bill. In committee, the Liberals refused to accept any changes from other parties because they have a majority. They are ignoring the opposition and making all the decisions themselves.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I am not sure there is any point in asking my colleague a question. He is just going to stand like he did before and say that the government has a job to do for Canadians and that it is going to do that job, whether it was elected to do it or not. I would like to remind him that we debated another time allocation motion not so long ago. At the time, I was asking questions of the minister responsible for Canadian heritage, who was defending that time allocation motion. I explained to him that, ever since the Liberals got a majority, they have been using it to hold in camera meetings at the expense of Driver Inc. victims and to quash investigations into the conflicts of interest of the Minister of Finance and his wife. Do members know what the Minister of Canadian Heritage said to me at the time? He asked me whether I thought he wanted to be here, because he had been forced to come and defend something that is indefensible. I will conclude my comments by saying that I serve on the Standing Committee on Finance and that I participated in the study of Bill C-30. As soon as the Conservative Party presented its first amendment, the Liberals clearly indicated that they were going to oppose any and all amendments because they have a majority. They did not even wait an hour to make that clear. They said it in the very first minute of the meeting. The Liberals were asking for a special report on specific changes to the Canada pension plan. I tried to negotiate a solution myself. Officials told us it was doable, but the Liberals refused. The reality is that the government is trying to curtail debate, whether it is a minority or a majority. Circumstances do not matter, and this government has decided that it will make all the decisions. According to the government, in a democracy, the opposition serves no function. I will say it again: I think Parliament is better than what the Liberals are doing with it.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade A– View analysis

Wayne Long

Liberal
“The opposition is wasting time by stalling this debate for 30 hours. Canadians want us to stop delaying and get to work.”

  • 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 analysis

  • A repeated line

    “They want us to build Canada strong.”

    Said 3 times by 2 members since May 1.

    Every time it was said
Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca Grade C View analysis

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 136

All 42 items ·
  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