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 .
32 statements
Linked statement
“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 have plenty of time to talk about this bill. Why is the government shutting down debate instead of letting us do our jobs?”
“Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269. However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate? Canadians sent us here to debate the issues, not have the government shut down debate. To the hon. member opposite, why is he doing this again?”
Madam Speaker, I should use this time to finish my speech on Bill C-269. However, I have a simple question. We have late-night sittings, and we have plenty of time. Why is this government, once again, bringing the guillotine of closure and limiting debate? Canadians sent us here to debate the issues, not have the government shut down debate. To the hon. member opposite, why is he doing this again?
“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.
“The government is cutting short debate far too often. This budget bill includes surprise rules, like deregulating dangerous pesticides, that were not in the economic plan. I want the member to explain why we are not given enough time to study these bills.”
“Madam Speaker, I suppose I will echo the comments of my friend from the Conservative benches, the member for Edmonton West, a moment ago. The programming motions, the time allocations, are becoming routine. They used to be rare exceptions. I am honoured to have been serving here for the last 15 years, so saying something as simple as “I have never seen anything like it” might mean something. The spring economic statement did not, in any way, foretell what would be in Bill C-30. A budget implementation bill is supposed to be about implementing what one reads in the economic statement. This one did not make anything of it. There is one line where we were going to include that regulatory agencies get to consider food security and food prices. It did not say that we plan to deregulate pesticides so that we can use them when they are too dangerous. I am wondering if the hon. member would explain why it is that we do not have adequate time to study bills in this place under the new administration.”
Madam Speaker, I suppose I will echo the comments of my friend from the Conservative benches, the member for Edmonton West, a moment ago. The programming motions, the time allocations, are becoming routine. They used to be rare exceptions. I am honoured to have been serving here for the last 15 years, so saying something as simple as “I have never seen anything like it” might mean something. The spring economic statement did not, in any way, foretell what would be in Bill C-30. A budget implementation bill is supposed to be about implementing what one reads in the economic statement. This one did not make anything of it. There is one line where we were going to include that regulatory agencies get to consider food security and food prices. It did not say that we plan to deregulate pesticides so that we can use them when they are too dangerous. I am wondering if the hon. member would explain why it is that we do not have adequate time to study bills in this place under the new administration.
“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.
“We need more time to study this bill. Thirty hours is not enough for a bill that changes so many laws. My constituents are worried about some of these changes, and rushing the bill through could cause bad mistakes.”
“Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being at the finance committee over the last week or so for a number of the hours the member is speaking about, and I can say that it has not been about filibustering. It has been about asking questions in the only venue that has been made available to us to examine this bill. I have received many emails, phone calls and comments from constituents who are concerned about some of the things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about, such as the pesticide clauses and other changes that are happening to a wide variety of bills. For a bill that would touch so many acts, 30 hours is not enough. We need to be able to examine this bill properly. I am wondering why the government is determined to ram things through without adequate consultation and risk unintended consequences of bills, as we have seen with Bill C-30.”
Madam Speaker, I had the privilege of being at the finance committee over the last week or so for a number of the hours the member is speaking about, and I can say that it has not been about filibustering. It has been about asking questions in the only venue that has been made available to us to examine this bill. I have received many emails, phone calls and comments from constituents who are concerned about some of the things that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about, such as the pesticide clauses and other changes that are happening to a wide variety of bills. For a bill that would touch so many acts, 30 hours is not enough. We need to be able to examine this bill properly. I am wondering why the government is determined to ram things through without adequate consultation and risk unintended consequences of bills, as we have seen with Bill C-30.
“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.
“Canadians gave the Liberals a minority government. They should not shut down debate like they have a majority.”
“Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career. Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?”
Madam Speaker, I, along with a number of my colleagues, came to this place in 2019 and have gone through three elections. The member opposite just said the Liberals were elected and, yes, they were elected, in a minority Parliament. I have experienced nothing but seven years of minority Parliament until, of course, a few weeks ago. Now I am experiencing a majority government for the first time in my elected career. Is this what I am to expect, time allocation, closure and cutting off debate? Is this how the government intends to reflect the minority mandate, quite frankly, that the Canadian people gave it?
“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.
“The government is cutting off debate on this bill, and the opposition needs to hold them accountable. I have real problems with the bill, like how it funds carbon capture. We need to be able to debate these issues in Parliament.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his responses to many of the questions being asked of him today. This is an important question, because Canadians have seen over the last number of years, and increasingly so, the limits of debate in this House in terms of how we address government bills. When Canadians elect a Parliament, they elect a government, with the most seats, and they elect an opposition. The tools of the opposition, of course, are to make sure the government is held accountable for what it is doing, and it brings those things forward through a process that has been well understood for a long time. If the government thinks that our role as the opposition is just to roll over and not perform our role as His Majesty’s loyal opposition, then it is mistaken. We need to continue to look at what the government is proposing. I have a number of issues with the bill at hand, including why we have allocated less than half the credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage in enhanced oil recovery than in any other of the environmental approaches. It is the most accessible way we can reduce CO2 emissions in this bill, and yet it is not going to be debated at committee. These are the types of things that have to be brought forth, and we have to respect the fact that Canadians need to see democracy being performed in the House where they elect people to represent them. Can my colleague please tell us where he thinks Canadians will get a view of how we are getting things done here in a democratic forum when his leader is using it less and less?”
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his responses to many of the questions being asked of him today. This is an important question, because Canadians have seen over the last number of years, and increasingly so, the limits of debate in this House in terms of how we address government bills. When Canadians elect a Parliament, they elect a government, with the most seats, and they elect an opposition. The tools of the opposition, of course, are to make sure the government is held accountable for what it is doing, and it brings those things forward through a process that has been well understood for a long time. If the government thinks that our role as the opposition is just to roll over and not perform our role as His Majesty’s loyal opposition, then it is mistaken. We need to continue to look at what the government is proposing. I have a number of issues with the bill at hand, including why we have allocated less than half the credit for carbon capture, utilization and storage in enhanced oil recovery than in any other of the environmental approaches. It is the most accessible way we can reduce CO2 emissions in this bill, and yet it is not going to be debated at committee. These are the types of things that have to be brought forth, and we have to respect the fact that Canadians need to see democracy being performed in the House where they elect people to represent them. Can my colleague please tell us where he thinks Canadians will get a view of how we are getting things done here in a democratic forum when his leader is using it less and less?
“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.
“The previous Conservative government created grants for trades workers, but the Liberals cancelled them and stopped grants for vocational students. Conservatives and unions pushed the government to bring back some of these trades grants. Why did the Liberals cancel them in the first place? Why do they still refuse grants to vocational students?”
“Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of the trades. In 2006, Stephen Harper brought in grants for trades workers. In 2009, the same Conservative government brought in completion grants. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister was to cancel grants for trades workers and completion grants. The government also pulled student grants for students studying at vocational institutions. Now, after a lot of advocacy from Conservatives, as well as from unions, we were pleased to see the partial restoration of grants to trades workers. This is something we and unions had advocated for. I want to ask the minister, number one, why did the Liberals cancel these grants in the first place? Second, why are they still denying student grants to those studying at vocational institutions?”
Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on the issue of the trades. In 2006, Stephen Harper brought in grants for trades workers. In 2009, the same Conservative government brought in completion grants. One of the first acts of this Prime Minister was to cancel grants for trades workers and completion grants. The government also pulled student grants for students studying at vocational institutions. Now, after a lot of advocacy from Conservatives, as well as from unions, we were pleased to see the partial restoration of grants to trades workers. This is something we and unions had advocated for. I want to ask the minister, number one, why did the Liberals cancel these grants in the first place? Second, why are they still denying student grants to those studying at vocational institutions?
“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.
“The government refused to answer our questions in committee about public pensions. A top finance expert told me our work to explain these changes clearly is very important. I want the government to explain why it will not give Canadians clear answers about what it is doing to their pensions.”
“Madam Speaker, when we sit in a committee with members opposite and officials who are unwilling to answer questions, we make whatever analogies we can to try to convince them to answer those questions. What we were talking about in committee, which was very important and very serious, was how we explain to Canadians what we are doing with CPP. That is very important to those in this country. Following the supposed filibuster that they are talking about, which was really questions about CPP, I got a phone call from a very senior finance executive who has worked for not one but two of the maple eight pension funds, telling me how important the work we are doing in finance committee is and saying how important it is to produce reports that explain, in plain English, what we are doing in the House to Canadians’ pensions. If the members opposite do not understand how important it is to make sure that there are no unintended consequences through the drafting of bills that affect Canadians’ pensions, then I do not know what to do. Perhaps the member could explain why he does not think Canadians should be able to get a full explanation about what the government is doing to Canadians’ pensions?”
Madam Speaker, when we sit in a committee with members opposite and officials who are unwilling to answer questions, we make whatever analogies we can to try to convince them to answer those questions. What we were talking about in committee, which was very important and very serious, was how we explain to Canadians what we are doing with CPP. That is very important to those in this country. Following the supposed filibuster that they are talking about, which was really questions about CPP, I got a phone call from a very senior finance executive who has worked for not one but two of the maple eight pension funds, telling me how important the work we are doing in finance committee is and saying how important it is to produce reports that explain, in plain English, what we are doing in the House to Canadians’ pensions. If the members opposite do not understand how important it is to make sure that there are no unintended consequences through the drafting of bills that affect Canadians’ pensions, then I do not know what to do. Perhaps the member could explain why he does not think Canadians should be able to get a full explanation about what the government is doing to Canadians’ pensions?
“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?
