Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Bill

Moved third reading of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.

She said: Honourable senators, as we wind up this session, I hope that this bill is actually the highlight of the last several weeks that we have been together here in this chamber. I am going to watch the clock.

Honourable senators, it is an honour for me to rise today at the third reading of Bill C-30, An Act to implement certain provisions of the spring economic update tabled in Parliament on April 28, 2026.

The Senate’s National Finance Committee began its study of the bill in early May and concluded over 20 hours of study and added an extra session in early June to be more thorough.

To give you an overview, this bill contains provisions that implement several of the measures outlined in the 2026 spring economic update, notably those aimed at improving Canada’s tax system, promoting greater equity within the banking sector, supporting workers and strengthening the resilience of our national food supply.

I would like to begin with the measures in Bill C-30 relating to income tax and excise tax, which are an important part of the bill.

With respect to income tax, Part 1 of the bill introduces amendments to the Income Tax Act and related regulations intended to improve the functioning of the tax system. This includes modifications to the labour mobility deduction for eligible tradespeople. It was originally introduced in Budget 2022 to help recognize the financial burden of working away from home. It allows tradespeople to claim transportation, meals and temporary lodging costs of up to $4,000 annually. Notably, the amendments reduce the minimum distance threshold from 150 kilometres to 120 kilometres, and it increases the annual deductible to $10,000, which is up from $4,000.

Over 2,500 workers took advantage of this deduction last time, and 40% of them hit that cap of $4,000. The reduction by 30 kilometres will likely mean more people are able to claim as well.

The Executive Director of Canada’s Building Trades Unions, Sean Strickland, appeared before the National Finance Committee. He was in support of this era of nation building and recognizes that one of the challenges is the availability of skilled trades. The building trades do fully support these measures in Bill C-30, which increases the labour mobility deduction to $10,000 and decreases the kilometres to qualify to 120 kilometres.

Starting in 2027, importantly, the maximum deduction increases in line with inflation, so we may not deal with this again.

Taken together, these changes would provide meaningful tax relief to tradespeople who travel for temporary job opportunities in the construction trades.

The $10-million capital gains tax exemption for eligible business transfers to employee ownership trusts and worker cooperatives was due to expire at the end of 2026. This measure makes it permanent, offering relief and long-term security to business owners planning for the succession of their companies.

By facilitating the transfer of ownership to employees, this measure will help ensure the long-term viability of small and medium-sized enterprises, particularly where there is no successor within the family or external buyer. Instead of facing closure, businesses could remain rooted in their communities, saving local jobs and the social fabric.

In Part 1, section 2.1.3 helps new homeowners. The original Home Buyers’ Plan allowed people to withdraw funds from their RRSPs to purchase a home. They had 15 years to repay the amount withdrawn and had to make their first repayment two years after the withdrawal. The 2024 budget pushed that first repayment from two years to five years between 2022 and 2025. This clause in this bill pushes it out again for those first withdrawals to land between 2026 and 2028.

This extension once again recognizes that these initial years after purchasing a home can be financially demanding, as new homeowners often face a combination of mortgage payments and a host of other costs. This proposed postponement gives those new homeowners a chance to breathe.

Another tax measure set out in Bill C-30 provides temporary immediate expensing for eligible greenhouse buildings. These provisions would enable producers to fully write off the cost of building new greenhouse facilities in the year the expenditure is incurred, rather than spreading it out over several years. This would encourage the expansion of greenhouse production and help strengthen Canada’s year-round domestic food supply. This measure forms part of a broader federal approach aimed at tackling rising food prices and strengthening food security.

As a quick reminder, the government has also introduced cost of living support through the Canada Groceries and Essentials Benefit, immediate assistance for food banks via the Local Food Infrastructure Fund and the continued development of the National Food Security Strategy focused on reinforcing domestic supply chains.

Part 2 of the bill introduces measures that are intended to provide temporary relief for specific sectors.

In response to recent fuel price increases, due in part to the evolving geopolitical situation in the Middle East, Bill C-30 amends the Excise Tax Act to provide temporary relief by setting federal excise tax rates on gasoline, diesel and aviation fuel at $0 from April 20 to September 7, 2026. That will get us through the usual summer travel season, up to Labour Day. At least 25 million drivers in Canada will save 10 cents per litre on gas and 4 cents per litre on diesel.

This temporary relief is reducing the pressure on fuel prices for Canadians at a time when it matters most. There is additional tax relief measures for beer, spirits and wine producers, a further two-year extension of the 2% cap on the inflation adjustment for those excise duties and an extension of the temporary 50% reduction on excise duty rates for the first 15,000 hectolitres of beer brewed in Canada for another two years.

Together, these two measures are expected to provide over $30 million in relief to this sector through 2028. Don’t forget that those brewers have been facing higher packaging costs thanks to American tariffs on aluminum cans since 2025.

For our information, we have 1,200 small and independent craft breweries and brew pubs operating across Canada, supporting thousands of jobs, and we have over 600 wineries in Canada. They’ll likely be having a toast to this measure should it pass.

Division 3 of Part 3 amends the Canadian Payments Act to make it so that the Canadian Payments Association, which is known as Payments Canada, and the people who work for it or represent it, such as employees, directors or officials, are legally protected from being sued for most types of civil liberty when they are performing their duties in good faith under the Canadian Payments Act. The only exception is contractual liability, meaning that they can still be held accountable if they breach a specific contract.

This change helps attract more members and promotes more competition within the payment system. In 2025, interestingly, Payments Canada settled more than $411 billion every day in business through these payment structures, so what they do is important. That’s likely all the legal money flowing from one account to another.

Division 4 of Part 3 amends the Employment Insurance Act. This current measure, which provides up to five additional weeks of regular EI benefits to workers in seasonal industries in 13 targeted EI regions in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the Yukon, would be extended until October 7, 2028.

Division 5 of Part 3 introduces a change that would slightly lower the contribution rate for the base Canada Pension Plan, or CPP, from 9.9% to 9.5%, beginning on January 1, 2027. In practical terms, this means that both employers and employees would pay less into the CPP on earnings within the base pensionable range, resulting in savings of approximately $133 for both sides. It is a solid indicator of the CPP’s long-term viability.

I also wanted to discuss a few measures related to transportation and information sharing.

Division 6 of Part 3 amends the Canada Transportation Act to require airports to provide the Minister of Transport with the information needed to develop policies, and it specifies how and to whom this information may be communicated. In practical terms, this amendment would allow the government to access the essential information it needs to assess the reforms of the Canadian airport system.

Divisions 7 and 8 of Part 3 outline amendments to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency Act and the Pest Control Products Act to clarify the agency’s mandate and to take into account considerations relating to food security and the cost of food. There was a significant positive response to this from agriculture stakeholders. The amendments also authorize the Governor-in-Council, in defined circumstances, to exempt certain persons, activities or products from the application of legislation administered by the agency to ensure that consideration of economic security or food security does not have unintended consequences in those defined circumstances.

Finally, amendments to the Pest Control Products Act would now require the Minister of Health to consider, wherever appropriate, factors such as national economic security, regional economic security and national food security. The legislation also allows the Governor-in-Council to authorize the use of a pest control product in emergency situations. This authority applies in cases of serious infestations and can be used when it is considered necessary to protect national or regional economic security or Canada’s food supply. The Governor-in-Council may also set specific conditions on how the product can be used.

Honourable senators, concerns were raised both in the other place and during the pre-study of the bill by the Senate Committee on National Finance about these new exceptional powers being granted in Parts 7 and 8 of the legislation.

In its report to the Senate on the pre-study of the bill, the committee commented:

. . . these powers should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances and that decisions to use them should be made transparently, be informed by scientific evidence, and involve consultation with stakeholders. As well, they should be subject to strict oversight, such as by systematically producing an assessment whenever such a power is used.

Colleagues, those concerns were heard by the government, and the government has amended Bill C-30 in committee in the other place to beef up transparency and scrutiny of any decisions made under these powers. We think that the report of the National Finance Committee produced that kind of impetus for them to do so.

New reporting guidelines have been incorporated to ensure timely reporting to Parliament, accompanied by justification for the exemption order, to allow for greater scrutiny and accountability to parliamentarians.

The Chair of Crop Protection of the Fruit and Vegetable Growers of Canada gave an example of how it could be used.

Seventy-five per cent of the rutabaga production on Prince Edward Island was wiped out due to a serious infestation. There was a pest control tool that was phased out, and so too was the production of rutabaga. The crops were ruined. It is now no longer commercially viable to grow this vegetable, limiting the ability to produce our own food here in Canada.

The summary remarks this witness made were as follows:

If a critical pest management product is delayed, unavailable or removed without a viable alternative, the result can be lost crops, reduced yields, poor quality, higher costs and less Canadian-grown food.

I have to mention that, given some of the debate we had in the house this afternoon, farmers do not want to use pesticides. Every vegetable or fruit grown with pesticides is more costly. So they want to grow their crops without them, and only use them when they are necessary, because they won’t have a crop if they don’t.

Honourable senators, as Canadians continue to face ongoing economic pressures, including uncertainty in global trade and other profound shifts in our global landscape, it remains paramount that federal measures be carefully advanced to strengthen Canada’s economic resilience and support key sectors. The bill before us seeks to do just that.

It would help Canadians who need it the most, whether it is workers facing uncertainty, families struggling with the rising cost of living or industries adapting to an ever-changing environment.

Honourable senators, Bill C-30 provides a concrete and measured response to the challenges Canadians are currently facing, while allowing Canada to build on its existing strengths.

I ask all senators to give the bill their careful consideration and, ultimately, to support Bill C-30. Thank you.

Honourable senators, I wasn’t expecting to deliver my speech following a quote from the Premier of Alberta, approved by Senator Gignac.

Colleagues, I rise today to speak to Bill C-30, an act to implement certain provisions of the 2026 spring economic update.

It’s interesting that Bill C-30 deals with the 2026 spring economic update, while Bill C-31, which has yet to be passed, deals with Budget 2025. We’re passing an economic update bill before we pass the budget bill.

Over the past few days, we have considered Bill C-32 and Bill C-33. In both cases, the same concern emerged: Parliament is increasingly being called upon to approve expenditures or powers without all the information it needs to fully exercise its role. Bill C-30 takes this logic even further. In several of its provisions, Parliament is asked to delegate decisions today that will be made tomorrow by regulation, order-in-council or ministerial decision.

I shall therefore focus my remarks on four areas: the expansion of regulatory powers, the new provisions concerning federal airports, the temporary suspension of the excise tax on gasoline and diesel and, finally, the amendments to the Pest Control Products Act.

Honourable senators, one of the most striking observations arising from the study of Bill C-30 is the government’s growing tendency to ask Parliament for sweeping powers and then govern by regulation or by order-in-council. This trend isn’t limited to C-30. As I pointed out during the study of Bill C-32, 23 of the 38 government bills introduced so far assign new powers to a minister or to the Governor-in-Council.

This number should stop us in our tracks. These are no longer one-time occurrences. They’ve become a trend, where Parliament sets the general direction, and practical decisions are gradually transferred to the executive. No one is disputing that governments must have tools to address exceptional situations. However, Parliament must not become a mere delegating body.

When he appeared before our committee, Minister Champagne explained that geopolitical changes, supply chains, health crises and national security issues justify a modernization of government powers.

I understand that argument. However, there are several provisions that allow for exceptional measures to be adopted without the usual public consultation. Some even allow for normal regulatory processes to be bypassed. When exceptional powers can be maintained for several years, we must ask ourselves whether we’re still dealing with an exception or whether it has become the rule. As Senator Oudar pointed out to the Minister for Finance, something presented as a simple exception could last for up to six years while bypassing several of the usual regulatory mechanisms. She had this to say:

True, it’s a system that functions by exception. I readily acknowledge the importance of food safety and the economic realities. However, the legislation states that this system that functions by exception can last up to three years and can be renewed for a further three years. So we’re talking about a six-year system that functions by exception. When an order-in-council of this nature is issued, it isn’t subject to the Statutory Instruments Act. There isn’t any prepublication. A number of systems that function by exception come one on top of the other.

This is a fundamental issue. Parliament exists to ensure a balance between government efficiency and accountability. In a parliamentary democracy, speed can never replace accountability.

Honourable senators, the second issue concerns the new provisions relating to airports. This is set out in Division 6 of Bill C-30. Proposed section 50.2 grants the Minister of Transport the general authority to collect information about the Canadian airport sector from a wide range of stakeholders.

The criterion is quite broad, based as it is on what the minister deems necessary and on the activities that, in his view, could affect an airport’s value. Simply put, the minister will have the power to require certain aviation sector stakeholders to give him information whenever he says the information is necessary.

At first glance, the government is telling us that it just wants more information, which may seem reasonable. However, a closer examination of the wording of the bill raises some questions. The government is seeking new powers to require information from a wide range of stakeholders. This information would be used to assess various scenarios for the management and, potentially, the ownership of federal airports.

A number of witnesses and senators have tried to understand the government’s real intentions. Is this just about gathering information? Is it part of a conversation about infrastructure modernization? Is this the beginning of a process that could lead to the sale, transfer or privatization of certain public assets, such as airports or parts of airports?

To date, answers remain incomplete. The minister told us that no decision has been made. We take note of that response. However, if no decision has been made, why seek such broad powers at this stage?

Airports are not ordinary assets. They are strategic infrastructure for our country. They play a vital role in regional economic development, ensure citizen mobility, contribute to our national security, and enhance the economic appeal of many regions across the country. Several senators expressed concerns about the potential impact of these new powers on regional airports. Senator Forest highlighted the vital role that this infrastructure plays in economic development, attracting workers, tourism, and regional connectivity.

When asked about the government’s intentions, the minister stated that no decision had yet been made and that the current goal was simply to obtain the information needed to conduct due diligence. That answer, however, leaves a fundamental question unanswered: For what purpose are these new powers being sought?

The affected communities need predictability. They need to know what the government’s vision is for the future of this strategic infrastructure.

Once again, as members of Parliament we are being asked to grant authority today without knowing exactly for what purpose it will be exercised tomorrow. I believe that the government will need to demonstrate greater transparency when it comes to its objectives.

Honourable senators, I will now turn to the third issue that warrants consideration: the temporary suspension of the federal excise tax on gasoline and diesel.

I understand the reasoning behind this measure. The cost of living remains high and the government wanted to provide Canadians with immediate relief.

However, this measure will cost approximately $2.4 billion, and many questions remain unanswered. Senators Gignac and Dalphond talked about how difficult it is to measure what proportion of this tax cut will actually benefit consumers.

When prices rise rapidly for other reasons, consumers often see only a fraction of the advertised benefit. It is therefore reasonable to ask whether more targeted measures could have provided better support to the most vulnerable households. As Senator Gignac pointed out, the government should provide a detailed assessment of the results obtained once the measure has come to an end. Good public policy must be measurable.

The final example that I’d like to discuss shows perhaps even more clearly the trend toward transferring decision-making authority from experts to the executive. Bill C-30 amends the Pest Control Products Act to allow the Governor-in-Council to authorize or reinstate the use of certain pesticides, even where a scientific assessment concluded that their risk to the environment or to human health is unacceptable. The government justifies this measure on the grounds of economic security or food security.

The question remains: Who should have the final say when a scientific finding and a political consideration collide? Through this provision, the government ultimately transfers the decision from a scientific framework to cabinet. Once again, we see the same phenomenon observed in recent bills: greater discretionary powers being granted to the executive to meet objectives that are defined later by regulation.

Some committee members have expressed concerns about these changes. For instance, the committee’s eighth and ninth reports on its pre-study of Bill C-30 states the following:

However, other members expressed concern that introducing economic and food security considerations into the application of this act raises significant public policy, health, environmental and governance issues that warrant further scrutiny. In any case, the committee urges caution in the application of these new emergency powers.

In conclusion, honourable senators, the committee’s report emphasizes that Bill C-30, as an omnibus bill amending several non-financial acts, was studied for a limited period of time that restricted opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny. It notes that the Minister of Health didn’t appear before the committee to explain proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act and that a number of experts and organizations that submitted briefs weren’t given the opportunity to appear before the committee. Given how serious these changes and their potential repercussions are, the committee says they warranted a separate study rather than being included in an omnibus bill.

In that regard, in a brief signed by about 20 Canadian scientists, Maryse Bouchard, a full professor at the Institut national de la recherche scientifique and author of several studies on the effects of pesticides on health, expressed concern about the fact that cabinet, which is made up of elected officials who are subject to political and economic pressure, could overturn decisions made by Health Canada scientists on the toxicity of pesticides. She and 20 scientists affiliated with 13 Canadian universities signed this brief to urge the government to withdraw the amendments to the Pest Control Products Act found in Bill C-30 and Bill C-31 and to instead focus its efforts on improving the implementation of the Pest Control Products Act. According to these scientists, the proposed amendments lack clarity when it comes to the definition of “national economic security, regional economic security or national food security” and there is no provision in the Pest Control Products Act that provides for such an assessment.

With Bill C-30, Parliament is being asked to approve today a power whose specific parameters will be determined tomorrow. That is exactly the kind of shift in decision-making authority that should urge us to be cautious.

Honourable senators, Bill C-30 contains measures that respond to real concerns expressed by Canadians. It also contains several initiatives to strengthen the Canadian economy in a challenging international environment.

However, our study also highlighted some significant issues. We observed a trend towards more expansive regulatory powers. We observed increased reliance on orders-in-council. We noted vague, imprecise provisions that are cause for concern. We noted a lack of clarity regarding the future of certain strategic assets. We raised questions about the effectiveness of certain temporary tax measures.

Our role is not to stand in the government’s way. Our role is to rigorously examine the consequences of proposed decisions, support what works, improve what can be improved and offer a reminder that transparency, responsibility and accountability remain the cornerstones of our parliamentary democracy. Canadians elect a Parliament to debate important decisions, not to progressively transfer authority to the executive branch.

Governing effectively is important, but so is governing transparently. When a government asks Parliament to delegate more powers to it, it must be prepared to demonstrate why those powers are necessary and what limits will constrain them. That is why I remain concerned about several provisions of Bill C-30 and the growing concentration of powers that they illustrate.

I hope I have convinced the majority of senators to vote against this bill.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “yea.”

Some Hon. Senators: Yea.

The Hon. the Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

Some Hon. Senators: Nay.

The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion the “yeas” have it.

I see two senators rising. Is there an agreement on the length of the bell?

Is leave granted for 15 minutes?

The vote will take place at 7:05. Call in the senators.