Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the contribution of the hon. member to the functioning of the finance committee. She is a refreshing and reasonable voice, which is sometimes missing.
I want to pick up on a couple of her comments about the impact the Conservative Party had on the amendments to the budget bill and, therefore, it is so much better because of these amendments.
The first point is the budget bill contains 24 parts. Of the 24 parts, the Conservative Party had a somewhat modest impact on part 15, which had to do with the word “toxicity” should or should not be in the budget bill at all. Because there was some ambiguity, the government agreed.
The second impact that I recollect was whether the minister could have one or more technology funds. To my knowledge, that is the sole contribution of the Conservative Party.
In other respects, when the Conservatives started out, they supported the budget bill. Then during the process of the budget moving through the House, they decided not to support the budget bill. Then when it went back to committee, they supported the budget bill. Now I understand they still support the budget bill. It is an interesting juxtaposition between the reality and what actually happened in the exercise of the budget going through the House over these many months.
I am very pleased to enjoy the support of the Conservative Party and I encourage hon. members opposite to confine their remarks so we can proceed to pass the bill.
With respect to the so-called fiscal imbalance, just what it is that is unacceptable in the minister's creation of the committee on fiscal imbalance? This is an ongoing exercise of continually looking at sources of revenue and seeing whether they are appropriately balanced. What is wrong with the proposal of the minister to have a committee review the equalization formula?