Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would just say to my colleagues that basically we're looking at a motion and an amendment to the motion that are going to inform us a little more on making decisions as we go clause by clause on the BIA.
Mr. Garon talked about the capital and operating expense definitions in his motion. I'm not a former minister of finance from Quebec, but I ran a business, and we all know that capital items are investments and that operating expenses are operating expenses.
We can debate the criteria on either side, but I think we have to follow the will of Parliament. There was a vote that was very close, but there was a decision made. They voted in a majority to support this budget 2025. There are many measures in budget 2025 that constituents in my riding, in my province, in Atlantic Canada are waiting for. Due to the uncertainty in the economy, which is caused by the tariffs, we need to implement the investments, get on with the program of governing and move forward.
I guess I question why we're not going right to a vote on this because we should have full support for bringing in more informed opinions. All that the parliamentary secretary has amended is to bring in Kevin Page, a well-respected former parliamentary budget officer, appointed by Stephen Harper way back in the day. Surely a second opinion or more information is not going to harm our ability to study the budget implementation act going forward.
I think we really need to bear down on what our role here is at committee. The BIA is tabled in the House. There's a sense of urgency in the country to get some investment going so that we can turn our economy around. For those reasons, I support the amendment. I want to get on with the business of governing and studying the BIA so that we can implement all those measures of investment as soon as possible for the Canadian economy.
I'll turn it over to my colleague here now.