Madam Speaker, it is a rare thing in this place to say of a bill that there should be more things put into it. We often do say that there are too many things in a bill that do not relate. I think there is a moral point at stake, and there is a conceptual point. We are talking about Canada's recovery. This bill is the legal foundation for the first big step in Canada's recovery. I actually think it is coming too soon for the kind of step that it is. I think this is actually probably more like the third or fourth step and we are jumping across a lot of steps that we need in between.
However, we did need to have a discussion in this place about what Canada's recovery looks like, how we make sure that no one is left behind and the programming we need in order to do that. The fact that the government's proposal is inadequate does not mean that it was not right to have that conversation and that it did not make sense to have a bill that would bring those elements together so that we could really talk in a programmatic way about what our recovery looks like.
Splitting up the bill just means we are talking piecemeal about recovery instead of a recovery system that could actually build an infrastructure for a new economy that really does not leave people behind. The bill does not do that, but this is the place for the conversation.