Finance Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2025

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. MacDonald.

I have Mr. Turnbull next on the list. If not, I can go to the next person on the list, who is Mr. Kelly.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Sure. That is Mr. Sawatzky.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

To add on to what you were saying, the cuts would need to come from somewhere. Who are we going to tell that they aren't getting the funding? Are we going to have to cut climate programs? We can't afford to cut our climate programs. We have a moral responsibility to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and make sure we're sustainable in the long run. If cutting those programs is an option, I don't see that as a very good idea, personally.

As you mentioned, a lot of what we're doing here is investing in large-scale projects that will grow the economy and grow the GDP, such as ports, electricity corridors and all those sorts of things. There is a big difference between investing in these long-term projects that will grow the economy and cutting taxes in a really irresponsible fashion.

All of that is to say I don't agree with this either. I think this is not well thought-out.

Talking about our income tax rates compared to those of our peers in the G7 and the OECD, I'm wondering if any of the witnesses here would be able to elaborate on how Canada compares.

[Pierre Leblanc]

I think I can answer that generally. There are different ways to measure personal income tax rates. I don't have any of the figures in front of me.

One commonly recognized measure that I would point to is carried out by the OECD. It's for all of the countries in the OECD. It's basically measuring taxes on workers in a comprehensive way. It could be a single person with an average wage or a family where one spouse is making, say, higher than the average wage and the other is making lower than the average wage. Relative to G7 and OECD countries, Canada is on the lower end of those tax rates in terms of paying less tax. Reducing the lowest marginal personal income tax rate by one percentage point will bring that down even a bit more.

It's potentially something we can follow up on.

I think I can make that general statement for now.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

That is pretty promising. I think that is good news.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Sawatzky.

I'll now go to Mr. Leitão.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to talk about something else. I agree that, if we compare ourselves to our OECD partners, the tax cut we're proposing would bring us back to a more comparable rate, and we'd even be in a better position than our partners.

When it comes to the fiscal framework, it's important to remember that we're talking about a difference of approximately $9 billion a year compared to the proposal set out in Bill C‑4. We all voted in favour of it. However, the proposal put forward by the Conservative Party is $9 billion a year, forever or almost forever.

So this is a recurring effect, which risks mortgaging our fiscal room for manoeuvre. As my colleagues mentioned, that would mean that we would necessarily have to reduce transfers to the provinces or transfers to individuals. I'm thinking in particular of the old age security pension or the Canada child benefit.

Those social programs are much more important, and we feel very strongly about them. I think Canadians generally like that kind of social program as well. That's what makes Canada what it is, and what makes it different from our American neighbours.

Our colleagues' proposals are headed in a different direction, in a direction where individuals should be able to rely on less government support. They should be on their own. They'll work hard, they'll have more money in their pockets, and that's it.

In Canada, that isn't how we developed our sense of solidarity and mutual assistance, which is very different from individualism. I think this individualism is somewhat hidden behind this much greater reduction in the tax burden. It will inevitably have to be offset by much more aggressive spending cuts.

My colleagues have often said that the deficit is terrible. I assume they would be proposing very deep spending cuts in their platform. The only way to do that would be to make massive cuts to social programs, transfers to individuals or transfers to the provinces.

I don't think that's what Canadians want. The other way would be to let the debt grow. That would be extremely inconsistent on the part of our colleagues, because they have been telling us repeatedly for months that the debt has already ballooned out of control. However, that isn't the case. On the other hand, if we went ahead with bigger tax cuts without having massive spending cuts to match, that's what would happen.

In fact, we saw in the United Kingdom not long ago what this kind of thing could lead to. Under Prime Minister Liz Truss, the new British Conservative government had the brilliant idea of implementing massive tax cuts. In the literature, this has been referred to as the Liz Truss moment. At that time, there was a kind of total rebellion in the financial markets. They told the British finance minister that the government couldn't do this and that, if it did, the financial markets would withdraw their confidence in British debt. They claimed that this would lead to a real crisis. In fact, it led to the end of that government, which didn't last long.

Are our Conservative friends leading us toward a kind of Liz Truss moment? This party claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility. However, it would be quite spectacular if this party ended up killing the fiscal leeway we have, which now allows us to look to the future. That future is quite worrying, since our neighbour isn't very reliable at the moment.

As a government, we have to be prepared to support the economy and support businesses that are victims of the trade war that exists with our neighbours. This is about keeping the Canadian economy afloat until we can have a trade agreement that works to our advantage. Nor are we going to sign just anything and put ourselves in a much more difficult situation than the one we currently find ourselves in.

As the Prime Minister said in question period today, we need massive investment in our economy. We believe in the government's ability to invest, but to do so, we need access to the financial market, and we need our financial framework to be credible.

We can all judge that on November 4, when the budget is announced. We find it credible, but if we were to accept this amendment, it would no longer be credible. By doing what our Conservative friends are proposing to do, we would be dangerously close to a Liz Truss moment. We clearly can't and don't want to see that happen. We still have a triple-A credit rating, and the debt-to-GDP ratio is manageable. We want to continue in that direction.

I'll leave it there for now. I'll turn it over to my colleagues, if they want to add anything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Leitão.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

For me, I keep coming back to the fact that this is so inconsistent with what Conservatives have been saying in the House of Commons every single day, ad nauseam. We hear them say that the government should be spending less. They're essentially proposing to forgo tax revenue at a scale that would significantly and negatively impact the government's ability to spend in other areas. I think what we're proposing is a very balanced approach. I think Canadians knew what they were voting for in our platform. Again, I think the Conservatives may have forgotten that they did not form government and that they actually lost the last election. Maybe they have forgotten that. We'll remind them every day as we govern.

For me, it's so hard to understand how they square this with the things they say on a daily basis in the House of Commons. It's just really inconsistent with what we see here in this place. I will be using this as an example in the House of Commons in every speech I give and in every response in question period that I have the opportunity to deliver in the future: While the Conservatives are saying that we need to decrease government spending and essentially be more fiscally responsible, they're at the same time in committee asking us to forgo tens of billions of dollars' worth of revenue that can be invested into the economy.

Our government, in its new capital budgeting framework and our new budget cycle, is taking a really responsible approach. We're going to bring down government operating expenses, and we're going to increase a focus on capital formation in the economy. To me, we have the fiscal space to do that within the AAA credit rating we enjoy in this country.

We had recent comments from the head of the International Monetary Fund, I believe just last weekend. I think the minister read that out in question period recently. These statements basically indicate that the IMF agrees with both the changes to the capital budgeting framework and the budget cycle, and also has said that our approach, which is to diversify trade, invest in infrastructure, and invest in special projects in housing, infrastructure, energy, etc., will help boost productivity.

I think the counterbalance to this is to say, well, we're reasonably offering a tax cut to Canadians, which they voted for in the last election, and simultaneously we're balancing that. We understand that there is a fiscal hit to that forgone revenue. When we stimulate the economy and focus on capital formation, we'll have additional revenues come in that counterbalance those tax measures. That's why it's a balanced approach. We know right now that if we don't pivot and don't adapt to the changing environment that the world is in due to what has traditionally and historically been our most trusted trade partner, we run the risk of a declining GDP. We run the risk of a lack of opportunities for our workers and Canadian citizens, and we'll see a diminished economy. We're interested in growing the economy, and I think we're balancing that with a tax cut.

What I find so strange is that on the one hand, the Conservatives say they want us to essentially decrease spending. On the other hand, they're proposing to essentially take a fiscal hit that would be in the tens of billions of dollars to the fiscal framework.

I really think this would compromise the stability of Canada's economy. It would compromise our ability to invest in a growing economy, because we would have less fiscal room within our balanced approach to actually work with.

That concerns me. I find it very surprising. I won't say “despicable”, even though I know that's a word that's been used recently in the House of Commons. Actually, it was said outside of the House of Commons by the Leader of the Opposition when referring to our RCMP. It is really a shame that he would say such a thing.

I will just say that I find it hard to believe that the Conservatives are the ones proposing this, even though I get that it was in their platform. I kind of understand that we shouldn't be that shocked, perhaps, because it was in their platform.

Unfortunately, you lost the election. I'm sure you can acknowledge that at this point, given that you're still sitting in the opposition benches after 10 years. I'm not meaning to rub that in, in any way. I just think it's important for us to recognize who is actually in the driver's seat governing the country, which is us. Unfortunately for you, Canadians sided with our tax measures and our balanced approach. That's what we're implementing.

I go back to the ways and means motion that we passed in the House of Commons, which was extremely clear in terms of the summary and the recommendation about the tax cut that we voted on. I think this is a fundamental change to what we were elected to deliver on. I think it exceeds the scope. I know I asked the question already, and it's been determined that this was actually in scope, but because of the fiscal hit that this would have and the fact that it exceeds the scope, I really can't understand how we can support this. We certainly can't.

I know my other colleagues have asked questions and spoken to this. I agree with their sentiments entirely. It's strange to see this coming from the Conservatives. I don't know what they would cut. If they were governing this country and they offered this tax break, they would cut indiscriminately like they've done in the past, which we saw under Stephen Harper. We saw it under other Conservative governments, when there was this cut to Veterans Affairs offices; there were cuts to defence spending and cuts to everything. It just seemed like it was a really significant, deep effort to cut, which does remind us of Liz Truss. I think my colleague mentioned Liz Truss. I have nothing against her personally, but certainly the U.K. economy did tank shortly after she got into power. I think she was the shortest-serving prime minister in U.K. history, if I'm not mistaken. I think the Conservatives are adopting pages from her approach, which will, it seems to me, compromise the stability of our economy and hinder the government's ability to make other investments.

Those are my concerns with this particular amendment. I thought I would get some more of those on the record. I'm sure my other colleagues will have some more thoughts to contribute to the debate.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Sawatzky.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I know there are a lot of details here. I want to stress the importance of our actually going through all of the important context when we're making decisions that are going to impact all Canadians. Sometimes it takes a while to get through all of the details; however, it is really important that we do flesh everything out here, because there's a lot of context that needs to be gone over.

A lot of us, of course, are waiting for this budget that's coming out on November 4. Something important to note here is that this is a budget that has a new capital investment budgeting framework, and that framework is going to distinguish between current operating expenditures and capital investments.

This is a really important thing to pick apart here. That's going to help the government prioritize investments that are going to deliver those long-term benefits for Canada. The operating expenditures are going to be balanced by 2028-29. The 2025 budget is certainly going to rise to the occasion here. It's going to be a budget whereby we're going to build, here, the strongest economy in the G7. It's going to do something very concrete to make life more affordable.

We know the cost of living is still a constant priority for Canadians. I certainly heard a lot of that throughout my campaign. In fact, that was the first thing that came to mind for people I talked to. I asked, “What are you most concerned about?” Most people really just wanted to bring those prices down, whether for their groceries or for rent, and so on. We know here with the government that is really one of the biggest challenges to Canadians.

Part of affordability is the cost of housing. We're facing a housing crisis, particularly for younger generations being born into a housing market in which they cannot afford to even think about the concept of buying. That's something that is really important for us to address as the government.

As part of that, we're implementing an approach to increase the supply of housing for Canada. The Prime Minister recently launched a new federal agency responsible for building affordable housing on a large scale, called Build Canada Homes. That's going to combat homelessness by building supervised and transitional housing in collaboration with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities. This is a really big step towards making housing more accessible for a lot of Canadians.

In Bill C-4, we're talking about affordability, and this is just one example of making things more affordable for Canadians. It's going to build community-based, highly affordable housing for low-income households. It's also going to partner with private developers to build affordable housing for the country's middle class, which oftentimes includes some of the folks who are struggling most.

To do that and help Canadians buy those homes, the proposed elimination of the GST for first-time homebuyers is for homes valued at $1 million or less. It also reduces the GST for first-time homebuyers of new homes valued between $1 million and $1.5 million. As Canadians demanded, we're putting money back in their pockets by cutting taxes.

However, bringing it back to the topic at hand here, this is cutting taxes in a responsible way. It's cutting taxes in a way that will help Canadians most and is not going to have lots of other unfortunate impacts that the Conservative Party is proposing for cutting taxes. We want to be fiscally responsible here and consider the best interests of Canadians, not only today but going forward well into the future, and with investment into the long term in mind.

Since July 1, all Canadians have benefited from a tax cut that will save a dual-income family up to $840 per year starting in 2026. That may sound small to some, but for those who are living paycheque to paycheque and really struggling, $840 can mean the ability to put food on the table. That is something really important coming to all Canadians—to 22 million Canadians, in fact.

That's a lot of people who will benefit, while keeping things fiscally responsible here in the government. They can now keep more of their paycheques and can use that according to their priorities.

With the trade tensions with the United States, we know the importance of continuing to support Canadians affected by this dispute. Since the beginning of this, we've put in a robust Canadian system of economic support to help businesses and workers directly affected by the U.S. tariffs. We have heard consistently of all the industries that are really struggling right now: the auto industry, the steel industry, the aluminum industry.... The softwood lumber industry is particularly being hit hard in my home province of B.C. These are all industries that sometimes need supports from the government. The government needs to have some extra funding to deliver to these industries; otherwise, we have companies shutting down, moving to the United States.

This is a really big problem, and the government needs to be fiscally able to support these companies. When things look like they're about to go under, that's when the government needs to step in and assist. Fortunately, the government has been able to assist here. We're coming back to the concept of unfunded tax cuts, really, which is what this measure is proposing. The Conservative Party claimed that this was responsible spending, but frankly, it's not.

To the witnesses, I'm wondering perhaps if you might be able to speak of any other cases of countries that passed large, unfunded tax cuts, especially when the full implications aren't able to be weighed out. Could you maybe provide any examples of when this has happened in the past and what the outcome of that might have been?

[Pierre Leblanc]

Madam Chair, I'd like to thank the member for his question. It's an interesting one. I think we're best placed, as officials, to respond to technical questions on the bill before you.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Okay. Perhaps I'll ask a different question.

I'm wondering if maybe you could elaborate on the different kinds of analyses that officials do to calculate the impacts of a large tax cut, including potential unexpected impacts on government revenue.

[Stefania Bartucci]

Typically speaking, when we analyze a proposal—for example, a rate reduction—we look at several things, based on certain principles. We look at the potential effectiveness. We look at the efficiency of a proposal. We look at the equity implications of that. We look at which groups of people, by income, age and gender, will be affected and how. We look at whether or not a potential proposal would have implications in terms of the simplicity versus complexity on the tax system. We try also to consider any implications for administering a potential change.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you.

I'm wondering, with that in mind, if you are able to bring this to the amendments we're speaking of and perhaps add any kind of analysis of this amendment. Would that not be suited right now?

[Stefania Bartucci]

Thanks for the follow-up. I think most of what we can provide has already been said. It's essentially that the amendment would further reduce the first rate, which would also further reduce the non-refundable tax credits rates, since the two are linked, and we talked about that. We talked about the difference in the fiscal impact. I think that's probably about the extent of what we can give at this time.

[Jake Sawatzky, Liberal, New Westminster—Burnaby—Maillardville, BC]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Thank you, Mr. Sawatzky.

I now have Mr. Leitão.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to continue on the same topic, because it's particularly important.

When a government is preparing a budget and proposing tax measures, it must take you, the technocrats, some time to analyze all the repercussions of these measures. This can lead to all kinds of outcomes.

In your career, have you ever seen the Government of Canada, regardless of the party in power, implement a major tax change based on a 30‑minute analysis that was introduced by an amendment?

It takes a little more than 30 minutes to study this issue. I imagine that's not how you work.

Is that correct?

[Pierre Leblanc]

I thank the member for his question.

In general, our job is to provide advice to the government and to the minister. We are a large team at the Department of Finance, and we have a specific role. Generally speaking, we work within the framework of a budget or, sometimes, an economic statement. That's our normal framework.

It's not easy for me, as a public servant, to comment on the analysis that was done by other groups. We're quite familiar with our work. I'll leave it at that.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Thank you.

I understand very well, but generally speaking, you always do exhaustive work.

Therefore, it's not reasonable to think that we can implement a change of this magnitude through an amendment that was discussed for a handful minutes in a parliamentary committee. We're talking about a change that would deprive the government of approximately $9 billion a year more than what is already planned in the fiscal framework that has been so carefully developed by the team at the Department of Finance. That's not how it should be done. That's not how a serious, well-structured government works.

That said, I would like to come back to the importance of having a credible financial framework. It's always important, of course, but it's particularly important these days. Indeed, as the Prime Minister repeated this afternoon in question period, we're going to invest massively in our economy, for two main reasons.

First, we're in a particularly difficult time in our country's history. This is a defining moment for our future. We have a partner that we thought was reliable and with whom we've had free trade agreements for a long time. We've integrated our economy with that of the United States. All of a sudden, we found ourselves in a complex whirlwind where our partner is arbitrarily changing the rules of the game.

The government must be able to support its businesses and its economy to get through this period of uncertainty. Uncertainty is a drag on economic growth, as businesses, even those not directly affected by the tariff war, are reluctant to invest and make business decisions. We don't know what the next step will be. The rules change sometimes three times in the same week. This creates a huge amount of uncertainty, which is very damaging to private investment. The government must therefore have the means to intervene.

The investments we're going to make, the details of which will be unveiled in the budget that will be announced on November 4, are intended mainly to strengthen supply in our economy. We need to increase our productivity and our ability to grow our GDP. If these measures were just fuelling demand, regardless of our production capacity, they could indeed have significant inflationary effects. However, that's not what we're proposing. Rather, it's about increasing the supply of goods and services as well as our production capacity, significantly improving our defence capacity and building a defence industrial sector. This is something that has been neglected over the past few decades, and it now needs to be addressed.

To do so, the government must play a leading role. It's not the state that's going to start building all kinds of factories and all kinds of things. However, it will play a facilitating role and, as much as possible, help certain sectors have the confidence they need to invest in this new economy we want to create. It will have to be much more resilient and much less dependent on our neighbour's.

We're in a situation where so much of our exports are going to one market, which is the U.S. market. It's a market we're familiar with. We will not change geography; our neighbour will always be our neighbour. However, it is clear that, in the long term, we need to diversify our markets, conquer other markets and develop economic and trade relations with other partners. To do that, we need to invest massively in our infrastructure and production capacity. That's very much the direction, the road map, that will be announced in the budget on November 4.

At the same time, we must support sectors that are currently suffering from the arbitrary tariffs imposed on us, whether it be the steel sector, the aluminum sector, the softwood lumber sector or even the copper sector to some extent. Who would have thought that Canadian kitchen cabinet manufacturers would be perceived as a threat to U.S. security? That gives you some idea of the current atmosphere.

Therefore, it's important for the Canadian government to be able to make these investments and have the necessary flexibility to do so. That's why we have to be responsible. We've already said that we'll be very rigorous with our operating expenses to give ourselves the space to invest heavily in this new economy. In addition, this new economy must take climate change into account, even if we're talking a little less about these things.

We've been talking a lot recently about food inflation. The cost of groceries is going up every month and every year. It's terrible, and I don't want to minimize that. Food inflation is indeed a major concern.

We need to look at the causes of this inflation and see if it is just a Canadian phenomenon, if food costs more just in Canada. The answer is no, of course. This is a global phenomenon, affecting many friendly countries. We're seeing it in Europe, we're seeing it in Asia, and even we're seeing it in the United States. Prices in the grocery sector are always going up everywhere. We have to ask ourselves why. Our Conservative friends want to explain it through Liberal taxes. Not only are there no taxes on food, but we're also not responsible for the rising cost of food in Germany or France. We have to ask ourselves why there is this global phenomenon.

I'd now like to talk about climate-related issues. We've been experiencing a succession of climate events for the past few years, whether forest fires, droughts, floods or crop failures.

Recently, our Conservative friends have often mentioned the increase in the price of coffee and sugar. We import those products; we don't produce them here. I don't think a lot of coffee is produced in Saskatchewan. International commodity prices are being affected by climate change. Madam Chair, it's already too late. Climate change is already happening, and its effects are already being felt. Whether or not someone believes in climate change, they have to admit that the effects are very real and very concrete, and that they aren't going to lessen.

Part of the government's role as a public policy-maker is to find a way to adapt to that change. The international goal is to keep temperature increases below 2°C. However, it's important to understand that that's a global average. For a northern country like Canada, it's already quite a bit more than that. The climate change we're experiencing is in the order of 3°C or 4°C.

Climate change is already having very tangible impacts. For example, it causes floods, droughts and forest fires. How do we adapt to that? How do we build a climate-resilient economy that can withstand that change? I think that irreversible climate change is going to continue affecting the cost of food. How are we going to adapt our agriculture, our food production and our ability to distribute food?

Those are extremely concerning issues. We believe that the government has an important role to play, and I'd even say that its role is instrumental. Ideologically, I think our Conservative friends have a very different opinion. For them, the government has to be minimalist and intervene as little as possible. They withdraw from this interventionist doctrine, and they leave decisions to economic agents without engaging in government intervention.

Given the current climate uncertainty, we believe, unlike them, that it's necessary to adapt to climate change. This change is already irreversible, and it's compounded by a trade war with our main trading partner. It's also compounded by a worsening of geopolitical relations and by the ambitions of certain other countries regarding Canada's Far North, for example.

The German defence minister's visit to Parliament was quite interesting. In fact, you were there, Madam Chair. He came here this week to speak to members of our committee, as well as members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. He explained to us the need to address this new geopolitical tension. The German minister was accompanied by the Norwegian minister of defence. Germany and Norway are working very closely together. Not only are they both members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, but they have also strengthened their ties in terms of military and strategic co-operation.

I'm thinking back on some things that the Norwegian minister said. He said that the planet didn't look the same when viewed from the top, from Norway, as when viewed from London, Paris or New York. He added that Russia is right next door in the north, for example. I think, then, that we have to be aware of these new geopolitical challenges and this new climate reality. Climate deniers should begin to understand that we're already experiencing, every day, the effects of climate change, which is already irreversible.

For all those reasons, we believe that the Canadian government needs to have the necessary leeway to intervene and make the necessary changes. If we were to accept the amendment proposed by our Conservative colleagues, it would substantially diminish our ability to intervene and would force us to do counterproductive things.

We're in a period of great uncertainty, where the global economy is slowing down. As a result, this isn't the time to adopt a fiscal policy of reducing overall spending. When faced with uncertainty and a global economic slowdown, the government has to intervene. Our colleagues are entitled to disagree, but that's what we think.

That issue was somewhat decided last April. Canadians may have to make a decision again soon, but we maintain our position. To have the means to achieve our ambitions, we can't deprive ourselves of $9 billion in tax revenue per year, forever. In fact, it would be more than $9 billion, because the Conservatives' calculation is in constant 2025 dollars. Over time, it would be over $9 billion a year.

Madam Chair, I'll leave it at that. I'll probably continue later.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

We have Mr. Kelly.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Crowfoot, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Leitão is new to Parliament, so I congratulate him on his skill as a filibusterer.

We have witnessed something I have never seen before. We are about 102 minutes into this meeting, wherein Liberal government members are filibustering their own bill. I don't think I've ever seen before a government trying to prevent its own clauses in its own bill from coming to a vote. We're on clause 2. We're 100 minutes into this meeting, and we're on clause 2. I've never seen that before.

It's disappointing, because this is a bill that does contain some important measures that we, as an opposition party, had agreed with, had voted for and allowed to come to this committee to be studied, and it has been studied. We came prepared today to engage in a clause-by-clause review with an aim to move this bill along.

If this amendment is an amendment that the Liberals can't even handle allowing to come to a vote.... There are a number of other amendments ahead of us today, and I don't want to see the business of this committee derailed because we are waiting to start an important study on money laundering.

As a path forward, if these Liberals are going to spend all day filibustering an amendment to lower taxes further for Canadians in order to make life more affordable for Canadians, I am prepared to—and I would need the unanimous consent of this committee to do so—withdraw this amendment, so that we can move on to the next amendment.

Chair, through you, I will put it to the committee: If that will help us make some progress, allow this committee's scheduled business to continue and get us eventually to our study that we need to begin, I will ask to withdraw this amendment. They don't want the amendment, so I presume they will allow it to be withdrawn. I will ask for the unanimous consent of this committee to withdraw this amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Karina Gould]

Do we have unanimous consent to withdraw the motion?