Bill C-30

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026

Part 1 implements certain measures in respect of the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Regulations by
(a) modifying the Labour Mobility Deduction for eligible tradespeople by increasing the annual limit on expenses that can be deducted and by reducing the distance threshold for eligibility;
(b) making permanent the capital gains tax exemption for the sale of a business to an employee ownership trust or a worker co-operative;
(c) extending the repayment grace period under the Home Buyers’ Plan;
(d) providing temporary immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings; and
(e) improving the interaction of the Electric Vehicle Affordability Program with existing tax rules.
Part 2 amends the Excise Tax Act to temporarily set the excise tax rate on gasoline and aviation gasoline to $0.00 and on diesel fuel and aviation fuel to $0.00 for the period beginning on April 20, 2026 and ending on September 7, 2026. It also amends the Excise Act and the Excise Act, 2001 to implement an additional two-year extension of the 2% cap on the annual alcohol excise duty inflation adjustment, and of the 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada, effective April 1, 2026.
Part 3 amends several Acts in order to implement various measures.
Division 1 of Part 3 amends the Bank Act to provide that the Investment Canada Act does not apply in respect of certain transactions made by foreign banks or entities associated with a foreign bank if the transactions are subject to an approval under the Bank Act , the Trust and Loan Companies Act or the Insurance Companies Act .
Division 2 of Part 3 amends the Bank of Canada Act to combine into a single Act the Bank of Canada’s powers, duties and functions related to the recovery of costs incurred by it for or in connection with the administration of certain Acts. It also makes related amendments to other Acts.
Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Payments Act to provide immunity for the Canadian Payments Association and certain individuals from any civil liability, other than in contract, for anything done or omitted to be done in good faith in the administration or discharge of any powers or duties conferred under that Act.
Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act to, among other things,
(a) extend, until October 7, 2028, the duration of the measure that increases the maximum number of weeks for which benefits may be paid in a benefit period to certain seasonal workers;
(b) remove the description of the regions in which the workers must be ordinarily resident to be eligible for the increase;
(c) provide that those regions are established by regulation; and
(d) provide that paragraph 12(2.3)(b) of that Act is repealed on November 7, 2027.
Division 5 of Part 3 amends the Canada Pension Plan to reduce the contribution rate for employees, employers and self-employed persons for the year 2027 and each subsequent year.
Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Canada Transportation Act to require certain individuals and entities to provide the Minister of Transport with information that that Minister considers necessary for the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties and functions of that Minister or for the development of transportation policies. The Division also amends that Act to specify the individuals and entities to whom such information may be communicated.
Division 7 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and authorize the Governor in Council to, in certain circumstances, exempt persons, things or activities, or classes of persons, things or activities, from the application of provisions of certain Acts of Parliament, or regulations made under those Acts, that are administered or enforced by the Agency. It also makes a consequential amendment to the Agriculture and Agri-Food Administrative Monetary Penalties Act .
Division 8 of Part 3 amends the Pest Control Products Act to, among other things,
(a) require the Minister of Health to consider, as appropriate, national economic security, regional economic security or national food security, for the purposes of that Act;
(b) authorize the Governor in Council to, by order, after that Minister has decided that they do not consider the environmental risks of a pest control product to be acceptable, register or amend the product’s registration to permit its use in the emergency control of a seriously detrimental infestation, or amend, reinstate, or both reinstate and amend the registration of the product, if the Governor in Council considers it necessary to do so to protect national economic security, regional economic security or national food security; and
(c) provide that the Governor in Council may establish conditions in the order.

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

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when historians study the fiscal decline of nations, they often note that collapse rarely begins with a dramatic event. It begins with habits: habits of indiscipline, habits of euphemism, habits of pretending that borrowing is prosperity, that inflationary spending is strategy and that accounting definitions can be stretched indefinitely without consequence. This Liberal so-called spring economic update is not merely an illustration of Liberal-managed decline. It is not merely a Liberal rebranding exercise. It is a statement of Liberal governing philosophy, and that philosophy is simple: spend now, explain later, redefine terms when necessary and hope Canadians do not notice the bill until it arrives.

Canadians do not need a Ph.D. in economics to notice that these Liberal habits are costing them. They notice the Liberal money-printing inflationary deficits at the grocery store. They notice the Liberal taxes at the gas pump. They notice when their children conclude that home ownership is no longer a Canadian expectation but a lottery ticket. They notice it when this Liberal Prime Minister is the only G20 leader to deliver his economy a recession. They notice when this Liberal Prime Minister lectures them about making more sacrifices while failing to exercise any restraint when adding billions more to the national credit card.

In public economics, there is a concept known as “government failure”. It is the recognition that governments, especially when they are run by Liberals, are imperfect institutions. Similar to markets, they are subject to distorted incentives, information asymmetries, bureaucratic self-preservation and Liberal political opportunism. Liberal Bill C-30 is government failure bound in legislative form.

This Liberal Prime Minister promised discipline. He promised prudence. He promised to spend less and invest more. Instead, in just over a year, this Liberal Prime Minister managed to nearly double the deficit left behind by the last Liberal Prime Minister. Think about that. After a decade of fiscal excess under one Liberal Prime Minister, another Liberal Prime Minister arrived promising sobriety and immediately ordered another round at the bar. That is not renewal. That is relapse. The Liberals call this investment, but Canadians know it as credit card budgeting.

When a household continually puts ordinary expenses on a credit card, not because of emergency, not because of catastrophe, but because of chronic overspending, that household is not building wealth. It is mortgaging its future. The same principle applies to nations, yet the Liberal government behaves as though fiscal arithmetic has been repealed. In academic public finance, debt sustainability matters because interest compounds, fiscal flexibility narrows and eventually governments lose the ability to respond to genuine crises.

The independent fiscal watchdog, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, has once again raised the alarm. The PBO warns that this Liberal abandonment of traditional definitions of capital spending continues to undermine transparency. It is not a trivial accounting disagreement. It goes to the heart of the fiscal integrity of this Liberal government. Capital spending traditionally implies that the creation of productive assets occur, things that generate future economic value, public utility or measurable returns, or things like infrastructure, such as a new road or a new hospital. However, when Liberal accounting definitions become elastic, everything all of a sudden becomes capital. When everything becomes capital, nothing is.

The PBO has explicitly stated that the lack of definitions prevents this Liberal Prime Minister from ensuring that the Liberal government's fiscal anchor remains balanced. In essence, the independent officer charged with scrutinizing public finances cannot determine whether this Liberal government's own numbers mean what the government claims they mean. That should alarm every member of the House.

It is not only the PBO. The International Monetary Fund, the IMF, a global agency that the Liberals love to cite, has now called on Canada to adopt international accounting standards to improve transparency, ensure comparability over time and maintain a clear connection between borrowing and debt. Why? It is because this Liberal government's current fiscal presentation no longer inspires confidence. When both the Parliamentary Budget Officer and the International Monetary Fund are warning that our accounting lacks transparency, this is not a partisan talking point. It becomes a credibility crisis, and credibility matters.

In public choice theory, governments, especially like this Liberal government, are not assumed to act as neutral benevolent maximizers of public welfare. Rather, they respond to incentives. Liberal politicians prefer spending money today while shifting costs tomorrow through higher taxes, higher inflation, higher deficits and higher interest costs. Liberal bureaucracies seek budget maximization at the expense of taxpayers, who are often deprived of any input by their Liberal governments. Liberal insider interest groups seek concentrated benefits, siphoning money from public coffers while dispersing costs across everyday Canadians. This Liberal spring fiscal update reflects every one of those pathologies.

The PBO also warned that repeated spending increases beyond previous projections will “erode the credibility of fiscal plans and weaken confidence in the fiscal framework and raise concerns about long-term [debt] sustainability.” That is the exact credibility crisis that this Liberal Prime Minister finds himself in, because a fiscal anchor that moves whenever politically inconvenient is not an anchor at all. It is driftwood. What is the consequence? It is higher costs, higher debt and higher inflation, but maybe that is the new world order that this Liberal Prime Minister wants Canadians to live in.

Canadians are now paying $59 billion annually in debt interest. The PBO projects that this could rise to $80 billion by the decade's end, which is 13% of federal revenues. That is approximately $1,900 per Canadian every year. It is not for hospitals, roads, defence or housing. It is just to service the interest on yesterday's Liberal excess. Every Canadian family is effectively paying thousands of dollars merely to keep the Liberal debt machine running, and the debt interest now exceeds federal health transfers and the revenues collected from the GST. Canadians pay taxes only to watch that money routed not into services but into servicing the debt for prior Liberal overspending. That is not one of the so-called progressive policies the Liberals love to tout. That is intergenerational extraction.

There is another glaring black hole in this update: infrastructure spending. The Liberals have made commitments, but the Liberal spring economic update provides no year-by-year breakdown by department on infrastructure spending. It provides only Liberal press releases about so-called investments and maybe a top-line dollar commitment. That is Liberal rhetoric for, “This could blow a hole in the nation's finances and we have no way of tracking where the money is going.” In the accounting world, this is called deferred disclosure, and it takes me to my next point.

The Liberal Major Projects Office was heralded with great fanfare, but where are the progress reports on the infrastructure? Where are the timelines? Where are the approvals on the projects? The PBO notes the absence of public reporting. The Liberal government has allocated hundreds of millions of tax dollars for so-called project acceleration, yet it has provided zero clarity. It is no wonder that this office has been described as the “mostly photo ops” office. The only thing we know is that this brand new bureaucracy is staffed with Liberal insiders and executives who are collecting salaries as high as $700,000 a year. This reflects a classic principal-agent problem.

Taxpayers are the principals, while Liberal government institutions and their corporate insiders are the agents. When agents face weak accountability, asymmetric information and vague mandates, they optimize for process and motion, rather than outcomes and results. That is what we see with the Liberal mostly photo ops office. We see Liberal bureaucratic expansion without measurable performance, Liberal administrative theatre without delivery and Liberal insiders getting rich off executive salaries that could reach close to $1 million per year in some cases.

The Liberal housing hell is another prime example of this. After 11 years of failure, Canadians might have hoped for some urgency. Instead, even after allocating $13 billion to the so-called Build Canada Homes, the PBO projects that just 5,200 units will be built annually. In an unprecedented national, made-by-Liberal housing crisis, the PBO explicitly stated that this is “insufficient” to meet the previously targeted pace. If we recall, the Liberal Prime Minister promised 500,000 homes per year during the campaign, but his own brand new housing bureaucracy can build only 1% of his stated target. Housing starts continue to lose momentum and there are no specific metrics, no pace targets and no credible plan. We have the most unaffordable housing market in the G7. The Liberal government offers nothing but bureaucracy in place of home building.

Public economics teaches that regulatory barriers distort supply. When governments create friction through permitting delays, duplicative approvals and antidevelopment frameworks, prices rise. The answer is not endless, unconditional taxpayer subsidies layered atop supply constraints. Those merely inflate demand against an artificially limited supply. The answer is to remove those governmental barriers and let builders build, yet the Liberals persist in governance through announcements, rhetoric and blocking, rather than execution.

We arrive at the newest Liberal fantasy, which is the so-called sovereign wealth fund with no wealth. It is an office to prepare for a future press release to eventually borrow money, at the expense of taxpayers, to fund and siphon into politically charged investments. The Liberals already have the Infrastructure Bank, the growth fund and the defence bank. They have agency after agency, fund after fund and office after office, and the result is that Canada still has the worst investment performance in the G7. This is textbook government failure. If a project has a viable business case, capital markets will invest in it. Private investors will fund productive ventures. If a business case does not exist, taxpayers should not be conscripted into subsidizing political vanity.

Instead, we get what public choice theory would call rent-seeking. Politically connected actors position themselves around state capital allocation, all while consultants, advisers, insiders, transition offices, boards and task forces take out their straws and siphon off their share of taxpayer money. The beneficiaries are concentrated and the costs are diffused. That is how inefficient states grow, and Canadians can see it and feel it.

Canadians deserve better. They deserve an affordable government so that they can have an affordable life, honest accounting, discipline, prosperity and a government that understands the basic truth of economics. A nation cannot borrow and block its way into lasting prosperity.

[Jason Groleau, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Richmond Hill South.

I rise today not to engage in petty politics, but to talk about something very simple that everyone in our regions understands well, except the Liberals, of course: respect for hard‑earned money.

Back home in Beauce, money does not grow on trees. People earn their money early in the morning, with both hands in the dirt, behind a counter, at a construction site, or at a factory. When people earn it that way, they learn to respect it. It is with that respect in mind that I will talk about Bill C-30 and the Liberal government's economic snapshot.

The Liberals projected a $38‑billion deficit in budget 2025. For the current fiscal year, the Liberal Prime Minister is now projecting a $67‑billion deficit. Yes, $67 billion. That is a lot of money. That is not just pocket change.

The worst part is that he is projecting even bigger deficits in the years to come. Deficits can happen in a crisis. However, when they become a habit, Canadians have the right to ask a very simple question: Where are the Liberals' results? There are none. The real issue is not just how much money is being spent, but what we are getting in return.

Take housing, for example. While people are struggling to find somewhere to live due to skyrocketing inflation in rents, the Liberals say they are going to create yet another layer of bureaucracy with Build Canada Homes and a budget of $13 billion.

The results are modest. I am not the one saying that; it is the former parliamentary budget officer himself. According to his estimate, Build Canada Homes will help build 26,000 homes over five years. His conclusion is that this is a “modest” contribution. The Liberals are spending $13 billion on a modest contribution; meanwhile, young families are unable to get on the property ladder and young people are desperately searching for affordable housing. Canadians do not want announcements; they want more homes. They want construction. They do not want words; they want action.

Now I will turn to another obscene expenditure that I still cannot wrap my head around: the spaceport in Canso, Nova Scotia. To recap the situation one more time, a company is leasing this plot of land from the province for $13,500 a year. The Liberal government went to this company and offered to sublet the land from it for $20 million a year. It also decided it would be smart to sign a 10-year lease, for a total of $200 million. That is money down the drain. That is insane.

Why? What is on this land that is costing us $200 million? There is a 25-foot-by-35-foot concrete pad, two sea cans and a gravel road. I could build a dozen just like it with pleasure. I could do that, no problem.

The time will come when the Liberals will have to explain themselves to taxpayers. This is insane. We have not received any answers. We have been here for over a year, and we are asking questions, but we are still not getting answers. Nevertheless, there were 13 meetings with the minister's team, during which someone thought it would be a great idea to spend $200 million on a concrete pad.

Now let us talk about an issue that is close to my heart: the gun buyback program. What a waste of money.

According to the former parliamentary budget officer's estimates, the compensation could cost nearly $800 million. That does not even include the program's administrative costs. That is nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars to target law-abiding citizens first and foremost. Meanwhile, too many illegal weapons are crossing our borders and fuelling real crime. That is the real target. It takes courage, but the Liberals do not have it.

The problem is not the hunters in Saint-Georges or the sport shooters in Sainte-Marie, these proud people who obey the law. I have travelled all over Quebec and met with hundreds of hunters and thousands of sport shooters. These families feel they are being unfairly targeted. These are people who play by the rules, who complete the training, who obtain their licences, and who follow every law. Today, this government is treating them as if they are the problem. That is unfair. I can assure members of one thing: I have not finished my tour, and I will never give up on this issue.

As everyone knows, I come from a region built by entrepreneurs, farmers and manufacturers who export all over North America. Beauce is a beautiful region. I own businesses myself. In real life, when a person orders $100,000 worth of goods and only sells $60,000 worth, they lose their credit. That is exactly what the Liberals are doing with our children's credit card. When a government cannot balance the books, it should make adjustments, admit its mistakes, start over and move forward for the people. The government should be there for Canadians, not for its cronies.

A country's wealth comes not from the government, but from businesses. It is businesses that create wealth. They want to grow, hire people and conquer new markets, but they are coming up against endless red tape. The government is approving megaprojects that take years to come to fruition, but these are nothing more than announcements. Businesses have to deal with endless paperwork, which discourages even the best of them. This is a matter of economic survival. If we do not address this now, our children will pay the price and their standard of living will suffer.

The Prime Minister talks about developing new markets. I agree with that. Everyone agrees. It will not pay off for 15 years, but we agree. In the meantime, we must never forget one fundamental reality. I just did an economic tour of Quebec with some of my colleagues. Our number one partner will always be the United States. That is just geography.

Our steel and aluminum companies are facing 50% tariffs. Since April 2, as I mentioned here in the House, the metal tariffs were originally set at 25%, but for a garage door, for example, the tariffs are now at 50% on the entire product. Our businesses cannot compete. They are not getting any support from this government. It is that simple.

Let us talk about other problems affecting my riding of Beauce and many regions across Quebec. Our unemployment rate is under 2.8%. We have no workers, no people to work. The government must give us the tools we need to attract workers, produce goods and be competitive.

The one-size-fits-all approach that the Liberals in Ottawa are applying across the country is not working. We need flexibility, smart thinking, tact, and a clear understanding of how to support businesses. When the Liberals spend money without getting results, it is not just numbers on a page. It means lost opportunities for our regions.

Agriculture is not just an important economic sector. It is the cornerstone of food security in our regions. My colleague here in the back could speak to that importance. Our families in rural areas, thousands of producers, get up every morning to feed Canadians. However, there is not much for them in the budget. Our farmers feel abandoned. Production costs are skyrocketing. Just think about fuel, transportation, machinery, fertilizer, energy, and interest on loans. Who can borrow at current interest rates? Meanwhile, consumers are paying the price at the grocery store.

To conclude, I want to say this: When I come here, I think of the families who work so hard every morning. They are struggling to put food on the table. They are struggling to find somewhere to live. I think of our local manufacturers who are watching their profit margins shrink. I think of the entrepreneurs who take risks, create jobs and keep our economy going. These people are not asking for the moon. They are asking for a government that understands them, that respects them, that manages their money as if it were its own. They are asking for a government that can boost productivity, get projects moving and actually deliver on them, not just announce them.

We must defend our workers and our businesses against the U.S. tariffs.

Canadians deserve to have their money managed diligently.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is deeply offensive. The point of Parliament is to actually have respectful debate and discussion and make sure bills are adequately studied before they are passed. The track record of programming motions on Bill C-5 and this one on Bill C-30 sets extremely dangerous precedence.

Parliament is not a mere waste of time for a CEO in a hurry. Parliament is essential to Westminster parliamentary democracy, and we are here to represent our constituents. Regardless of party, views need to be heard. Again, if we all could work together better, it would be by not allowing prepared written speeches.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is often that I find myself here wondering if this place has turned into something not quite like a sports arena, in the style of the Trump White House, with its caged sport for the celebration of 250 years of independence, which is a topic that is not necessarily connected to this at all, but, for sporting spectacles, this place sometimes resembles nothing more than target practice for teams that live in glass houses. It is difficult to watch. I know that I must have a glass house somewhere, but with the Green Party never having been in power, we have less of a record to attack.

I do vividly recall when the Harper administration started using, as a matter of course, very long omnibus budget bills, which the Liberals of the day decried as burying too much in one bill, not properly reflecting or advancing the initial version of the budget and being done routinely.

We then had, of course, the Harper administration bringing in repetitive motions for time allocation. I remember the first time I had started noticing that it had become quite routine. I went back, looked it up and found out that, over a period of 40 years, which is not that far back in our history, it had happened about 10 times. I started adding them up and keeping track, and it became hundreds of times.

Of course, when in opposition, the Liberals pledged that they would never bring in omnibus budget bills containing many different measures in one piece of legislation and that they certainly would not use time allocation to shorten the time we have available to do those things. Again, both of the large parties live in, I must say, very large and well-equipped glass homes, but they are still throwing rocks at the same glass houses in which they live.

They have both moved to omnibus budget bills once in power. The Liberals have done it, first under former prime minister Trudeau and now under the current Prime Minister. They also have continued to use time allocation.

My own plea comes from my own little perch on parliamentary procedure. I know that it is against the rules of this place to have a member stand to deliver a written speech. If we followed that rule, I believe House leaders would be able to come to an agreement more quickly about how many speakers it would take to get a bill through the House.

Listening to debate on the motion so far, I am reminded that, as the parliamentary secretary says to us all, we have to use time allocation or we cannot get this passed. To which I say, again, this is a glass house. It is like a child who has killed both of their parents pleading for mercy because they are an orphan.

Why are we under time pressure? It is because the government of the day decided that we could shorten the amount of time we are sitting in June. Let us eliminate two days and create more pressure, meaning that it has to be passed now. Why is there no discussion about sitting longer? Why is there no discussion about what happened between when Bill C‑30 was first tabled on April 29 and when we next got back to it?

After three hours of debate, the government moved time allocation on Bill C‑30. It is not a massive omnibus budget bill, but it is omnibus enough that I certainly had no indication that I was going to come across division 8, which has the most regressive pieces of the deregulation of pesticide legislation that I have seen.

Believe it or not, as I know I look like a mere slip of a girl, someone who has just barely left law school, I have been working on pesticide issues for 51 years. This is the worst piece of deregulation I have ever seen, and it is inside an omnibus budget bill.

I would be happy to support many of the provisions in the spring economic statement. There are some I would not. That is the nature of an omnibus bill. There are many things affecting many different bills, done all in one vote and all in one go. This time it is with the added factor that we do not have a lot of time.

Who controls the timing? The government controls the timing. Who controls what bills come forward for debate, for Government Orders, for orders of the day? The government side does that.

My hon. friends on the finance committee, I must say, performed the most extraordinary filibuster I have ever seen, in terms of creativity. I sat through all of it because I kept hoping against hope that we would maybe get to clause-by-clause and that my amendments could be discussed and debated.

However, again, the pattern of the House of Commons since forever has been that the parties in opposition will use whatever tools they have at their disposal. It was decades ago that the Conservatives left the bells ringing for days. It takes a while, but the government regroups and finds a new way to get around that particular effort to put a spanner in the works. This is not uncommon, but what is uncommon is the use of programming motions, and I say this to my hon. colleagues on the Liberal benches.

The first extremely offensive programming motion, in my experience as a member of Parliament since 2011, was what happened in June last year with the programming motion on Bill C-5, which saw us take the most extraordinary seizure of power and expansion to the power of the executive cabinet in a bill, Bill C-5, which included provisions I never thought I would see in Canada, and say that, if in passing this law we break other laws we have already passed, that is okay. This is based on a historical and never-used-in-Canada archival bit of trivia. It was Henry VIII who came up with that. If in passing this law, we break other laws we have passed before, that is okay. This extraordinary abuse of power was in Bill C-5, building Canada strong and reducing interprovincial trade barriers in part 1, which went through this place. I will never forget it because I still feel like I was caught under a bulldozer going right over me. It was Monday, June 16, when the programming motion took effect, and second reading took place with limited debate to pass it to committee.

By the way, on the Monday, June 16, we did not even have a committee in place yet to deal with the bill. On Tuesday, June 17 at 3:30 p.m., the committee was put in place, one committee for all these provisions. Then the committee could start hearing witnesses in the afternoon. By Wednesday at noon, all amendments were due and so on until we got through report stage and third reading, both on Friday, June 20. Then we were adjourned for the summer, and we were told it was a monstrous hurry that we have a Major Projects Office. It was very important to able to see projects come through this process, which is why we could not, as I pleaded at the time, stay longer through the summer, discuss this bill, debate this bill, to see whether this extreme sweeping accumulation of powers by the executive was in any way justified. They said we were in a hurry, except it has been a whole year now, and the bill has not been used once to name a project through Bill C-5.

Again, here we are on Motion No. 12 on Bill C-30. I am thankful for the way the unanimous consent motion was structured. I will have a chance to speak at third reading on Bill C-30 on the specifics of the part I most decry. I still hope against hope that the finance committee tomorrow will see fit to accept the amendments I have put forward and deemed to be moved. I have been, as I said, patiently waiting while admiring the artistry of the Conservative filibuster. I must say I have had more fun watching paint dry. It is always more interesting. On the other hand, it was artful. Although I do not agree with why the Conservatives were filibustering, I do sometimes, as a person who is observing glass houses more than living in them, enjoy the karma of the whole thing.

I will vote against Motion No. 12 because it is offensive to democracy to have programming motions that say we must move fast, that we must not debate, that we must not consider. I find over and over again that there has been nothing like the current government for moving fast, and there has been nothing like the current government for treating Parliament with a kind of casual contempt. As a Canadian and someone who deeply believes in Westminster parliamentary democracy, I personally find it offensive. I may be the only one, but I think Canadians want to see this place respected and want to know that every bill has been properly studied. For one, I would be prepared to say that if properly studying bills means we cut into the summer and we are in Ottawa longer to do it, that is the right thing to do.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to participate in the debate on a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28.

We are debating the government motion today, which is very important. It is unfortunate that we needed a government motion to program committee business to ensure that the bill gets passed, but it is the direct result of Conservatives filibustering. They moved eight subamendments, for example, on one amendment, which was their amendment. It is quite unfortunate, when we think about parliamentary procedure, that the Conservatives had amendments that did not include the subamendments that they then proposed. They then successively filibustered the committee on an aspect of Bill C-30 that they had actually advocated for, to lower CPP contributions, knowing that the pension plan was healthy.

It is very unfortunate that we are here today, but I am also proud to work on behalf of Canadians and get key affordability and economic measures passed in the House before the House rises for the summer. Our government delivered the spring economic update 2026, “Canada Strong for All”, in April, as Canadians felt the too real effects of geopolitical turbulence well beyond the country's borders. That deep uncertainty persists as the world continues to undergo a series of fundamental shifts at a speed, scope and scale not seen in generations.

This fragmented world is more complex, more volatile and, for many, more costly and unpredictable. Our government continues to focus on what we can control, which is building a strong Canadian economy, diversifying our trade partners abroad, delivering responsible fiscal management and supporting Canadians who are under pressure from everyday expenses. Our objective is clear: to build a stronger, more resilient and more affordable country. There is no doubt that Bill C-30 is a big part of this effort.

Allow me to begin with the rising cost of food, which is understandably a concern for Canadians. Our government is focused on bringing down the high food prices that are putting significant pressure on Canadian household budgets. For example, to support those most affected by food costs, in January we announced the new Canada groceries and essentials benefit to help more than 12 million Canadians afford day-to-day essentials. On June 5, the first cheques went out to over 12 million Canadian families to help them with the cost of groceries. That is an average of $1,890 for an average family of four, which is a considerable increase from the GST rebate, which was boosted by 50% this year and 25% for another four years after.

Our plan also includes immediate assistance for food banks via the local food infrastructure fund, which was boosted by our government as well. Bill C-30 is proposing additional measures to help ease the financial pressures of food bills. The passage of Bill C-30 would help growers supercharge domestic food production in Canada with temporary tax changes to allow the immediate expensing of eligible greenhouse buildings. These provisions would allow producers to fully write off the cost of building new greenhouse facilities in the year incurred rather than spreading it over time. This incentive is designed to help expand greenhouse production and strengthen Canada's year-round domestic food supply. The measure is projected to provide $41 million in tax relief over six years.

The bill has so much more in it. Bill C-30 includes a number of other measures. Before I mention those measures, I will also make mention of June 11, when the Prime Minister launched Canada's first-ever national food security strategy. I am quite proud of this as I fed into the process. The national food security strategy will boost domestic food production and break open the market for independent food retailers in Canada. It will support resilience, regional supply chains and infrastructure that those supply chains need to thrive, and it will ultimately build a stronger, more independent, more affordable food system where there can be more competition, which we know is the key to bringing down prices. The strategy is backed by over $3 billion in investments over 10 years.

To help deliver on this important objective, Bill C-30 would amend the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to include the consideration of food security and the costs of food. To implement this change, the government proposes to provide $24 million over four years, and $9 million per year ongoing, to support Health Canada in expanding its economic analysis capacity to optimize the review processes for pest control products. These costs will be fully recovered through annual fees.

The government is also working tirelessly to help address housing affordability concerns. It is clear that the high cost of housing is putting significant pressure on household budgets, especially for younger Canadians. Our government recognizes that many Canadians who have recently purchased their first home, or who are planning to do so, continue to face significant affordability challenges and could benefit from a boost to their cash flow.

That is why Bill C-30 proposes extending the grace period during which homeowners are not required to start repaying their homebuyers' plan withdrawals from their RRSPs. The proposed extension is from two to five years. This extension is designed for homebuyers making a first withdrawal between January 1, 2026, and December 31, 2028. This extended grace period already applies to withdrawals made between 2022 and 2025. The bottom line is that this change would provide cash flow relief of up to $4,000 per individual, per year, for the three years over which they are not required to repay the amount into their RRSP.

The passage of Bill C-30 would also make an important change to Canada pension plan contributions to ensure Canadians can keep more money that they otherwise would have been compelled to contribute to the Canada pension plan. Indeed, the CPP is foundational to Canada's retirement income system, providing stable, predictable pension income to millions of Canadians. Considering the affordability challenges faced by so many households in Canada, Canada's ministers of finance unanimously agreed in April to reduce the contribution rate for CPP. The change would lower the contribution rate by 40 basis points, from 9.9% to 9.5%, effective January 1, 2027. That reduction to the CPP contribution rate will translate into annual savings of about $133 for an employee earning $70,000 a year, with the equivalent savings for their employer. The change will do this while ensuring the long-term sustainability of the plan.

We listened to Conservatives go on and on in committee for 10 or 11 hours about the health and sustainability of the Canada pension plan, which I recognize is a concern, but when the chief actuary has tabled a report in Parliament and has done the analysis to say that the Canada pension plan is healthy and solvent for the next 75 years, and when Conservatives have actually advocated to decrease Canada pension plan contributions themselves, decreasing it by 40 basis points, leaving a 30-basis point buffer in the plan, is certainly a smart move. It makes sense for Canadians. Considering the fact that finance ministers from our provincial and territorial counterparts across Canada all agreed to this unanimously, agreeing that it just made sense, I cannot see why Conservatives would be kicking up a fuss proposing eight subamendments in the finance committee.

Anyway, tax relief has been supported by our government. We moved forward with many tax measures, including an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians, suspending the fuel excise tax over the summer until Labour Day and offering new benefits such as the Canada groceries and essentials benefit. We cut the consumer carbon tax. We have done many, many things to support Canadians with many of the costs that they experience.

In Ontario, I am quite proud to say that the HST on new home purchases is being waived with an agreement we signed with the Ontario government. That includes up to almost $200,000 of relief. It is a 50% reduction in development charges and 13% off the purchase of a new home. That is significant support for Canadians. No one can argue otherwise.

Last, I will just say that Bill C-30, as I have cited, would enhance the labour mobility tax deduction for skilled trades workers when they travel for work. As we are boosting the economy, we are seeing more construction jobs, 27,000 of them, in the last labour statistics. We can see that those skilled trades workers can have an enhanced deduction of $6,000 more —

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague from Saskatoon West made the point that there was ample time. I just went back to double-check. First reading on Bill C‑30 was on April 29, and then time allocation, after three hours of debate, was moved a whole month later, basically, on May 25.

Does the member recall, because I am trying to recall, what happened with Bill C‑30 between first reading and when the government decided to bring in time allocation?

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Saskatoon West's concerns about this economy, and I also agree with our mutual colleague the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, who put forward a private member's bill to help Canadians with regard to purchasing used vehicles.

With regard to Bill C‑30 and the economic outlook, recently London and the London region have had a high unemployment rate. At one time, it was 9.1%, a high unemployment rate and the highest in Canada. Recently, it was 9.2%, the highest unemployment rate. This is affecting the London region. This is affecting Londoners.

I was just wondering if my colleague from Saskatoon West is experiencing the same issues with the economy in his riding.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could speak to the over 30 hours that the Conservative members of the finance committee spent filibustering Bill C‑30, which offers a number of affordability measures, economic measures that would help Canadians. For example, there is the labour mobility tax deduction, which is being enhanced from $4,000 to $10,000 for a skilled trades worker who would have to travel for work.

Could the member speak to the fact that he is standing here in the House, claiming that we are ramming something through, when his members wasted 30 hours of parliamentary proceedings and resources at the finance committee?

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to speak today to this motion and, of course, Bill C-30, which underlies it. This is the spring economic update. There are billions of dollars of spending, there is new taxation and there are significant legislative changes. This programming motion that the Liberals are trying to ram through the House right now in the last week of sitting just demonstrates to me how poorly the government can manage work around here, in Ottawa. It is no surprise that all the disasters and messes are happening in the country, because the current government cannot even manage the House, let alone try to manage the country.

Here we are now in this last-minute panic, and we would essentially eliminate debate. The finance committee would get 30 minutes to debate the bill. That is embarrassing. The committee is where questions get asked. The committee is where witnesses come to explain things. Very good things happen there. Sometimes errors are found. Furthermore, there would not be a report stage debate in the House, and there would be a very restricted third reading. Essentially, the normal operations of the House would be severely restricted in a last-minute attempt to do something the government could have been doing for the last couple of months. It is rather embarrassing. We need to make sure that ministers and officials are held accountable.

We proposed some good amendments to let the committee do its work and to let MPs do their work, but of course they were rejected. A confident government would defend its work, but a weak government does not want to do that. The Liberals do not want to have questions asked; they want to avoid all that. As they are spending hundreds of billions of dollars, it appears that they are evading accountability. That is not a good look, and Canadians can see that. The decisions that would be made in this bill would impact Canadians for decades. In fact, they would impact the grandchildren of members of the House. It is very significant.

In the good old days, going back 10 or 15 years, a single-digit deficit was considered a big deal. Fast-forward to where we are now, and the previous prime minister, Justin Trudeau, kind of blew that up. Not only were there single-digit deficits and double-digit deficits, but there were triple-digit deficits. Now, deficits are much bigger, and it is very bad for our country. The last Trudeau deficit was $35 billion. The first deficit of the new Prime Minister, who supposedly has all kinds of economic knowledge, was double the Trudeau deficit. It was up at $78 billion, and now this economic update would reduce that slightly to $68 billion, or $65 billion or something like that.

That is kind of like when a piece of furniture that should cost $2,000 is marked up to $5,000, and there is a big sale where it is knocked down to $4,000, and it is as if it were a big deal. However, the buyer is still paying double what they should have before. That is exactly what is happening here. The government cannot stop itself from spending money. Even when there is good news happening, such as when there is extra revenue from high oil prices, which benefits the government bank account, the Liberals still spend it. It is pretty ridiculous. Even by 2030-31, there is still going to be a deficit of over $50 billion, by their own estimate.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer, who is an officer appointed by the government, a person whom the government trusts, tells us it is going to be even worse than the government is saying; the government is actually not telling us the truth, there are going to be deficits of over $70 billion, and it is going to continue like that for the foreseeable future. It is structural, permanent deficit spending. The PBO also said that there is a less than 1% chance that the Liberals will meet any of their fiscal anchors.

This is not good for the country, because when governments borrow money, that creates a lot of demand in the system and means that there is less room for tax relief in the future and for additional spending on essential services. The debt charges this year will be just about $60 billion. To put that into perspective, the amount of money the federal government gives to the provinces for health care is $55 billion, so we are actually spending more on interest than what the government gives for health care.

It is not hard to imagine that interest rates will go up a bit. It is also, then, not hard to imagine that the $58 billion in debt charges could increase significantly and very rapidly, which would put major stress on the government's budget and would lead to a circular problem, with more and more deficits and more and more interest. It is kind of like paying one's credit card bill but making only the minimum payment. That is essentially what the government is doing right now, and this adds inflationary pressures and causes high interest rates. Everybody understands how, when the government borrows money, inflation increases and interest rates stay higher. Of course, that impacts people directly with higher mortgage payments, higher rents and extra costs.

Canadians are under severe pressure due to the cost of living. Inflation was up 2.8% in April, and it stays stubbornly high. Food inflation is even higher. It was up 4.4% in March. What that means is that people are eating less meat and fewer fruits and vegetables. Parents are sometimes skipping meals so their children can eat. Seniors may not be getting their prescriptions, and they may be turning off the heat or the air conditioning in the house. Higher interest rates mean that mortgage payments rise, and costs are passed through to customers as well through higher prices because businesses face all of these higher costs as well. Bill C‑30 would make this deficit permanent. There is no future where we can imagine the government eliminating a deficit.

I want to talk for a minute about housing because it is a perfect illustration. Governments need to be thinking about cost. We do not need more announcements. The government is so good at making announcements and talking a big game, but actually delivering is not something that it knows how to do. What people need are homes that they can afford. Every delay, duplicated review and unnecessary requirement is ultimately paid by the buyer.

One of the aspects where we see that is in the building code. Changes are looked at, but they are not actually costed. Particularly when we look at a multitude of changes happening at once and add them all up, it can be very significant. Would it not be nice if the government had to show its work, had to make looking at things from a cost perspective a core objective and had summaries that would tell Canadians what each cost would be? We could actually then decide if it made sense, if the benefit outweighed the cost. This is something very effective and relatively simple that the government could do. Most of this information is available. It is just not being used.

At the same time, we could maintain strong standards of health and safety, and we could advance technology. If we were careful about costs through the building codes, which does not cost the government anything, it would actually help people. It would make housing more affordable, reducing the cost of houses. This would help first-time buyers, renters, small and mid-sized builders, families and new Canadians. It would help everybody. This would not cost the government any money. In fact, there could be less bureaucracy, and it could save money. That is something we could definitely use in our country and would be a simple way for the government to make life more affordable for all Canadians.

I also want to talk about something that my leader talked about on the weekend. What if we were to cut the GST on used cars? Dealers charge GST on used cars. A car could be sold multiple times during its life, two, three, four times, and every single time, GST is charged, and the government makes money on that. We think that is unfair. The government should get the GST at the beginning, and that should be the end of it.

I want to thank my colleague the member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South for putting forward the private member's bill to eliminate the GST on used vehicles. It makes a lot of sense, and it could save about $1,800 on a typical vehicle purchase and would eliminate that double taxation.

We have many practical ideas. I just gave two of them. One is the used car GST removal, and the other is on building codes. Of course, the government does not want to hear that, and that is why it is putting forward this motion to end debate. It does not want to hear any of our ideas. It just wants to ram this through and move on.

That is the pattern we have seen for the last 11 years from the Liberal government. It likes to call itself a new government, but it has been around for 11 years. It is mostly the same people, doing the same things that got us into the mess that we are in. The Liberals seem to be ashamed and afraid, and that is why they are putting forward this motion today. I would urge the House not to pass this motion.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House on behalf of the people of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country to speak to Bill C-30, the spring economic update implementation act.

At a time of global uncertainty, our government is focused on what we can control here at home: building a stronger, more resilient economy, making life more affordable and creating opportunities for the next generation. This is exactly what Bill C-30 would advance.

Canada is already emerging as one of the world's most attractive destinations for investment. Foreign direct investment reached nearly $97 billion last year, which is the highest level in almost two decades. Surveys of global investors are showing that Canada is the most attractive place for infrastructure investment.

We will need that investment, as our government understands that Canada cannot be overly dependent on one market. For decades, roughly 70% of our exports have gone to the United States. Bill C-30 is part of a broader effort to strengthen Canada's economic sovereignty by diversifying trade, supporting domestic industry and investing in Canadian productivity. Since last year alone, non-U.S. exports have increased by more than 40%, while exports to Europe continue to grow significantly.

Importantly, this legislation recognizes that economic growth matters only if Canadians can actually feel it in their everyday lives. That begins with housing. Across my riding, housing affordability remains one of the defining issues that people raise with me. Young Canadians are wondering whether they will ever be able to buy a house in the communities they grew up in, while families are struggling with rising rents and housing shortages. The spring economic update responds by providing more than $7 billion in low-cost financing through the apartment construction loan program to accelerate the building of thousands of low-cost rental units across the country. Since 2019, this program has already financed over 300 below-market units in the Sea to Sky region alone. I have heard countless stories of how this has changed people's lives, from allowing people to live closer to work to allowing low-income workers to save money for their retirement for the first time.

The homes and the infrastructure Canada needs do not build themselves. If Canada wants to build the housing, infrastructure, transportation and clean energy projects we talk about so often, we need skilled workers, and many more of them. This is why one of the most important components of the spring economic update is the investment in skilled trades and apprenticeships. The government is launching a nationwide effort to recruit, train and hire up to 100,000 new Red Seal skilled trades workers by 2031 through the team Canada strong program. This creates a direct pathway for young Canadians into rewarding, well-paying careers while helping address labour shortages that are delaying projects across the country. This will support Canadians through the entire process, from discovering the trades to apprenticeship opportunities, completing the technical training and ultimately achieving Red Seal certification. It is also about reducing barriers by simplifying and accelerating the certification pathway so more Canadians can enter this workforce faster.

Bill C-30 would also improve labour mobility for tradespeople by increasing the labour mobility deduction from $4,000 to $10,000, lowering the threshold to access it and making it easier for workers to go where their skills are needed most. For workers who spend weeks away from home helping build critical infrastructure and housing, this matters.

This legislation also contains targeted affordability measures that would make a meaningful difference for Canadians. Between mortgage payments, rising living costs and uncertainty about the future, many young Canadians are feeling stretched thin even after reaching the major milestone of buying a new home. Measures in Bill C-30 like extending the repayment grace period under the homebuyers' plan would provide relief to homeowners to ease pressure during those early critical years of home ownership. Bill C-30 would also reduce the CPP contribution rates beginning next year, helping workers and businesses keep more money in their pockets.

While individually these changes may seem modest, in combination with recent measures like cutting Canadian income taxes, cutting the GST on new homes for first-time homebuyers and the groceries and essentials benefit, together they would help lower the pressure on Canadians who are already facing high costs.

This legislation would also expand support for volunteer tax clinics that help vulnerable Canadians access the benefits they are entitled to. I want to give a special shout-out to Louis and the volunteers behind the local tax clinic on the Sunshine Coast, whose work helps over 3,000 residents each year access benefits and support they might otherwise miss. Their work is a powerful example of community service in action and demonstrates how local volunteers can make a difference in people's lives.

At a time when global instability has contributed to rising fuel prices, Bill C-30 temporarily removes the federal excise tax on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel until Labour Day. This is already saving Canadian drivers about 10¢ a litre and providing direct relief at the pump for the families and businesses already dealing with many pressures. In places like Sea to Sky and the Sunshine Coast, residents continue to face inexplicably high gas prices. At all times, but especially right now, the Competition Bureau should be keeping a very close eye on anti-competitive behaviour and potential price manipulation in regional fuel markets like this one, because Canadians deserve fairness, transparency and confidence that they are not paying artificially high fuel prices.

Bill C-30 would support Canadian brewers by extending the 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada. That is an amount that covers the full production for over 94% of breweries in our country. For small brewers in my riding, like Coast Mountain Brewing, the Persephone Brewing Company and Backcountry Brewing, this provides meaningful savings that can be reinvested into local jobs, equipment, expansion and community events.

This legislation recognizes the importance of investing in coastal communities and marine infrastructure. Our government is investing nearly $1 billion in small craft harbours and critical infrastructure that supports fisheries, transportation, tourism and local economies. I have heard first-hand from many harbours, including the Gibsons Landing Harbour Authority, about the growing pressures facing them and the need for upgrades to support increased commercial fish harvesting and future transportation demands. At Gibsons Landing, this includes the planned electric passenger ferry service that could help provide much-needed relief for Sunshine Coast residents.

At the same time, economic development must go hand in hand with environmental stewardship. Bill C-30 includes more than $160 million over five years to continue protecting Canada's whales and marine habitats on all three coasts. This would build on Canada's broader $3.8-billion nature strategy and the commitment to protect biodiversity and marine ecosystems for future generations. Last month's announcement of a new marine protected area in British Columbia the size of Prince Edward Island reinforces the importance of stewardship of our oceans while maintaining access to sustainable fish harvesting and tourism opportunities. My constituents understand that protecting marine ecosystems is not separate from economic prosperity, but essential to it, because healthy oceans support fisheries, tourism, recreation and coastal livelihoods.

Food security is another key priority addressed in this legislation. As the Prime Minister said in Davos, food security is national security and, “A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options.” In an increasingly unstable world, shaped by supply chain disruptions, climate pressures and geopolitical instability, Canada must strengthen its domestic food production capacity. Bill C-30 and measures in the spring economic update would support that goal through supporting food production and distribution networks and, importantly, by providing immediate expensing of new greenhouse infrastructure.

I have already seen how this is making a difference in my riding. The Líl̓wat Nation broke ground on a greenhouse at one end of it. On the Sunshine Coast, projects like Swiya Farms in Sechelt are focused on building large-scale, sustainable local food systems and supporting community-driven agriculture and long-term food resilience, including a large-scale greenhouse that is being planned.

These are measures we are building on with last week's announcement of Canada's national food security strategy, which will increase competition to lower grocery prices, boost domestic production year-round and help local products get onto grocery shelves.

I also want to highlight the investment in sports and recreation in the spring economic update. In my riding, we know first-hand the lasting impact sport can have on communities. The 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games left a legacy that extends far beyond infrastructure. They inspired participation, strengthened community pride, supported tourism and created opportunities for young athletes right across the region. We have seen world-class athletes emerge from our communities, including Marielle Thompson and Trinity Ellis, but the true legacy of sports goes beyond medals. It inspires young people to get active, build confidence, develop teamwork and resilience and connect with their communities. That is why the spring economic update has a historic $755-million investment in Canadian sport that would strengthen communities and new sports programs to support national sports organizations and athletes, improve safe sport initiatives and help Canada host major sporting events.

I can see my time is running short, so I will say Bill C-30 is ultimately about building a more resilient, affordable and self-reliant Canada. It would invest in housing, workers, infrastructure, affordability, coastal communities, food security and environmental stewardship.

Together, we can build confidently, deliberately and together.

Government Priorities

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not even mention the Keystone XL pipeline, which is good for the U.S. but bad for all the countries working to fight climate change.

I did not even mention Bill C‑30, which would allow previously banned pesticides to be approved. That will be good for the U.S. factories that manufacture Monsanto products, but it will be bad for our trade relations with Europe, which operates by stricter standards.

The Prime Minister talks a good game, but his actions are moving him further away from our European allies and closer to Donald Trump. He writes fine speeches, but why do his actions always contradict his words?

Government Business No. 12—Proceedings on BillC‑30

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑30 contains measures that allow cabinet to grant exemptions to certain rules on food and agriculture for up to three years with a possible extension.

Does my colleague agree that such powers should be debated rigorously and thoroughly rather than being rushed through in committee?

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We disagree on many things, but he was right to point out that the Liberals have a tendency to impose their own solutions on the provinces and on Canadians.

As for Bill C‑30, the Liberals cut the debate short. They refused to give important witnesses the opportunity to appear before the committee and they tried to push through ideas that they did not campaign on.

What does the member think that says about the Liberals' commitment to accountability?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by pointing out that June 15, 2026, marks the 35th anniversary of the founding of the Bloc Québécois. In Sorel, on June 15, 1991, in the wake of the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Lucien Bouchard and members from Quebec from various backgrounds chose to come together to give Quebec its own voice in Ottawa.

Lucien Bouchard put it very clearly, in a way that has stood the test of time: “The Bloc Québécois is the only way for us to do away with the harms of dual legitimacy. The truth is that there are two peoples, two loyalties and two visions of the country. There is a country missing in this country. Quebec is missing.”

Thirty-five years later, this observation still resonates. Every time that Ottawa forgets about Quebec's priorities, every time that the regions are treated as an afterthought, every time that Quebec has to remind the government that it is a nation, the entire reason for the Bloc Québécois's existence is confirmed. Today, Bill C‑30 is another example of that.

Not surprisingly, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We are not voting against it because it is entirely bad. Some of the measures are a step in the right direction. However, a budget implementation bill must be judged as a whole and, taken as a whole, Bill C-30 fails to address the most pressing needs of Quebec and our regions.

For regions like mine, the Lower St. Lawrence, this economic update is notable primarily for what it does not contain. While Quebeckers are fighting for survival, and while the aluminum, steel, timber and processing sectors are suffering the repercussions of new trade barriers, the government is tabling an economic update that does not rise to the challenge.

In eastern Quebec, this directly affects our forestry businesses, our manufacturers and the workers who sustain our communities. There are no support programs for the affected sectors and no real plan to protect jobs, as if this crisis can simply wait, yet the Bloc Québécois has proposed concrete measures to support the sectors affected by American tariffs, to help the elderly, to protect our regional media and to finally reform EI. None of these proposals were retained.

We also called for correcting the injustice created between seniors 65 to 74 and those 75 and older. In a region like the Lower St. Lawrence, this issue has a real impact. At 74, groceries cost the same as they do at 75. Housing costs the same. Heating costs the same, and yet, Ottawa continues to treat these seniors differently. The Bloc Québécois believes there should not be two categories of seniors. Our seniors have worked their entire lives. They have built our communities. They deserve to be treated fairly.

We also called for meaningful support for regional and French-language media. In eastern Quebec, we have seen regional news coverage lose ground. When regional newscasts are no longer broadcast from within our region, it is a wake-up call. The government has chosen to concede to the web giants and forgo revenue that could have been used to support local news, culture and French-language media. This economic update includes no concrete measures to further support regional media or protect local news. Once again, it is the regions that are left holding the bag.

In a region where agriculture plays an important role in the local economy, we are also concerned about the proposed changes to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and to the Pest Control Products Act. The government wants to weigh economic considerations against public health and environmental protection. For the Bloc Québécois, health care decisions must not be driven by politics. They must be based on science. Public health must never become an economic adjustment variable.

I now want to talk about employment insurance. The government is extending certain provisions for seasonal workers until 2028. That is better than nothing. However, it still falls short of the comprehensive reform that regions have been seeking for decades. Seasonality is not a temporary phenomenon in the Lower St. Lawrence. It is part of our economic reality. In 2028, our forestry, agriculture, tourism and marine industries will still need workers. The conditions that justify these provisions will still be there.

Why then are temporary solutions still being applied to a permanent problem? Why is uncertainty allowed to persist year after year? Why are these protections not being permanently enshrined in law? The Bloc Québécois is calling for real EI reform, permanent reform, systemic reform, reform that will finally eliminate the spring gap for thousands of workers. Seasonal workers are not a temporary problem. They are at the heart of our regions' economies.

Ultimately, this bill does not address the priorities of regions like ours. It does not address the challenges raised by U.S. tariffs, the expectations of seasonal workers, the pressing needs of seniors or the difficulties facing our regional media. It also raises serious concerns about public health and environmental protection.

People back home are not asking us for the moon. They are asking us to listen to them, to take their reality into account and to come up with practical answers to the challenges they face in their daily lives. Unfortunately, this bill provides them with no such answers.

For that reason, the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C‑30.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is indeed a situation that concerns us. A closer look shows that all of this plays right into the hands of the airlines. A commissioner who receives complaints needs to be given the necessary tools to make progress and process complaints. The government should not take away or withhold resources from the commissioner, only to finally say that the system is not working and that the work needs to be outsourced. Complaints must be handled with full transparency.

Air passengers are families and individuals who pay to go on vacation and to travel and who are victims of injustice under the law and the regulations. They have a right to timely compensation, but they also have a right to be assured that the process is fair and transparent. That is a far cry from what is in place now. Can such assurance be provided? It might be possible. Would a parliamentary debate have perhaps provided that assurance? The answer is yes.

However, the reality is that by the time the study of Bill C‑30 is complete, there will not be time for us to ask the right questions and get to the bottom of things for the benefit of the public. Today, we are under a guillotine. The bill will be shoved down Parliament's throat, and all these questions will remain unanswered.