House of Commons Hansard #161 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was debt.
This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.
Bill C-41—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1—Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that Bill C-41’s provisions on medical assistance in dying share a common element, so the bill will receive one second-reading vote rather than separate votes under Standing Order 69.1. 500 words.
Alleged Mis-characterization of Members' Remarks —Speaker's Ruling The Speaker rules that allegations about remarks made in debate are a point of order, not privilege, and finds the Halifax member’s criticism of an opposition position did not breach House rules. 500 words.
Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2 Report stage of Bill C-31. The bill implements measures from the 2025 budget, including expanded benefits and automatic tax filing for eligible low-income Canadians, business investment incentives, and changes to defence procurement, air passenger complaints, housing finance and pesticide reviews. Government members say it supports affordability and economic resilience; opposition members raise concerns about delayed passage, fiscal management, expanded ministerial powers and insufficient transparency and oversight. 50000 words, 5 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.
Respecting Families of Murdered and Brutalized Persons Act Report stage of Bill C-235. The bill allows judges to extend parole ineligibility from 25 to 40 years in narrowly defined cases involving the kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of the same victim, with reasons and appeal rights. Supporters say it can reduce repeated trauma for victims’ families; the Bloc raises constitutional concerns based on Supreme Court precedent. The House passes the bill at third reading. 5600 words, 45 minutes.
Opposition Motion—Federal ProcurementBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
It being 3:11 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
Business of SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker Francis Scarpaleggia
I declare the motion defeated.
I wish to inform the House that, because of the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 14 minutes.
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-31, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025, as reported (with amendments) from the committee, and of the motions in Group No. 1.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, despite all that growth, somehow Public Services and Procurement Canada lacks the staff to renew the defence contracts. I am not buying that, and neither should Canadians. Even if it were true and the government were issuing fat contracts faster than staff could keep up, it becomes a matter of triage on priorities. National defence is supposed to be the highest priority of a national government. Contracts to secure enough bullets and bombs should always be at the top of the pile. Instead, the priority of the defence department goes to the sole-source contracts hiring American diversity consultants.
One of the recommendations Conservatives have made to fix the bill is to establish a secretariat inside the Privy Council Office. This would do more to ensure that defence procurement is a priority than would Bill C-31 and Bill C-40 combined. We know this from our experience in Afghanistan. Under Stephen Harper, defence procurement was a real priority of the Privy Council Office. That is how we rapidly procured 651 light armoured vehicles, 500 tactical armoured patrol vehicles, 100 battle tanks, 37 Howitzer guns, 21 Chinook helicopters, 17 Hercules aircraft, 16 route clearing IED devices and five Globemaster aircraft. That is a real record with real results.
The Liberal record is one of delay, deny and deflect. The decision to delay the completing of the F-35 contract is not based on what is best for Canada's national security. It is about what is best for the political interests of the Liberal Party. The threats to Canada's national security have not diminished since the Conservatives left government. They have grown. Anyone watching the defence committee yesterday or anyone reading today's editorial in The Globe and Mail knows the truth. The threat of war is very real. Our soldiers were the tripwire in Latvia but now are at an even higher posture. Our sailors ply the Taiwan Strait, yet the government seems more keen on doing business with the very countries we might find ourselves in conflict with.
There is a real urgency needed to rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces after a second Liberal decade of darkness. Instead, the government wastes time trying to figure out the difference between a Crown agency and a Crown corporation. The Liberals have us debating legislation rendered moot by the next bill they introduce. This is no way to run a lemonade stand let alone a NATO member country. If this is how the Prime Minister ran the Bank of England, it is no wonder the U.K. crashed out of Europe.
It is clear from the bill before us and Bill C-40 that the government does not know what it is doing. This is not the quiet competence of a central banker but the desperate hustle of an investment banker caught in a stock market bubble. All his foreign trips and fake summits are meant to create the impression of action, the illusion of substance, but photo ops do not put bullets in the rifles or jets in the sky. The Liberal Party famously ran a campaign with a platform listing out 40 priorities. If it has 40 priorities, then it has zero priorities.
Conservatives understand that national defence is the number one priority of a national government. It is time the Liberals learned that lesson.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, all the bafflegab aside, let us look at the reality. Since the last federal election, when people chose our Prime Minister, there has been a solid, tangible commitment to the Canadian Forces to the degree that we now have a record number of people applying to be members of the forces. There has also been the increase to 2% of GDP.
Bill C-40, which the member referred to, would create a Crown corporation to ensure that tendering is efficient and that Canadians are getting good value and, at the same, time transparency and accountability.
Does the member not recognize that, in the last 18 months, the Prime Minister, in fact the government, has moved quicker on military than those in generations before us did?
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, people are leaving the military faster than it can recruit them. It does not have bullets. It does not have the equipment. We have zero air defence in Canada. That is why it is keeping the Canadian people in the dark. The government knows that war is coming, and it has to warn the people but is not prepared to do so.
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke for her long-standing efforts, since 2000, on the national defence committee. She knows this file inside out and backwards. She also knows that the Defence Investment Agency has done nothing but make announcements and promises. It actually has not delivered anything yet.
The government loves to talk. We hear the member for Winnipeg North get up to say that Crown corporations are the greatest thing ever. We can talk about all the sliced bread the government has invented in the last little while, but the reality is that there is no transparency, there is less accountability and there is going to be more opportunity for more political interference and the rewarding of Liberal insiders.
Will the member please address that issue and how this would actually open up the doors to more corruption, which we have witnessed in the past?
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, we have seen the correct way to do procurement. It was when Prime Minister Harper was in charge. He assigned the Privy Council Office to do it. When the prime minister is behind the orders, we get it done.
Right now, the Prime Minister has changed a defence agency in its infancy into a Crown corporation. The difference is that he can invest money. The government can invest in companies, in the Crown corporation. Not only are they getting the benefits personally from the dividends, but now, with the government's investing in these companies, it is nationalizing them. We have seen that in other countries, and we are at odds with them.
Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC
Mr. Speaker, just today I got an email from L'Arche Comox Valley. It is building a project of 16 homes for adults with intellectual disabilities. Build Canada Homes rejected its application for, get this, not meeting supportive and transitional housing requirements. If these Canadians do not qualify for supportive housing, who actually does? Build Canada Homes continues to lay blame, saying that construction and financing costs are not eligible. Mortgage debt means more unaffordable rents and draining of the non-profit itself. These Canadians need support to live independently before they face homelessness.
Does my colleague agree that the Liberal government needs to stop making excuses and fund projects such as this? I know there are projects such as this in need right across the country.
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, ON
Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before us is about the military. I can tell the House that not only are regular people, civilians, looking for housing but that the people joining the military are also looking. The military has not built new barracks in years, and the barracks it does have are condemned. A recruit coming in is sent into a room, if there are even any left, that is mouldy, with insufficient electricity and no connectivity. That is no way to treat someone who is going to put their life on the line for their country.
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise and represent my wonderful riding. Today, I will be speaking to Bill C-31, the budget implementation act from last year.
This legislation deals with the allocation of public funds from the previous fiscal year, which ended on March 31 and, in my opinion, should have been passed by this House a long time ago. In fact, tomorrow, November 4, it will be one year since the previous budget was tabled. This is from a government that said it would move at speeds never seen before in the history of Canada. The Liberals have not done that with their legislative agenda and all of the procedural tools available, even including time allocation, to move this bill forward.
When borrowing is increasing and debt service costs are consuming more public resources, the government has an even greater responsibility to be transparent in how it accounts for every dollar. After the spring economic statement earlier this year, the Parliamentary Budget Officer highlighted “absence of key planning and governance detail for many new measures”.
Indeed, since the government tabled the budget a year ago, there has been nearly $5 billion in various announcements not tied to the budgetary process; in other words, spending before parliamentary approval. That includes $1.75 billion for a venture capital fund; $750 million for an agricultural growth pathway program; $430 million to unions; $200 million to an Inuit organization; $173 million for women's entrepreneurship; $168 million for a research ecosystem; $145 million to FIFA; $813 million for research chairs; $100 million to Gaza; $100 million to Vital health, and I do not even know what that is; $100 million to ELYSIS, and I do not know what that is; $100 million for offshore wind in Nova Scotia; and $100 million for women's economic leadership.
I will not comment on each of these announcements made by ministers. However, I will note that when the government gets completely into the habit of making spending announcements outside of the budgetary process, following the usage of public funds through the budget and estimates process in Parliament becomes almost impossible for the average member of Parliament.
Now, on the Liberal side, that does not seem to matter very much because most of the Liberals never speak in Parliament anymore. They have delegated that role to one member, the member for Winnipeg North. That is sad. I actually believe there are lots of intelligent people in the Liberal caucus. Either they are not allowed to speak or they do not know how, but it diminishes the capacity of this House to scrutinize and to have proper debates. I want intelligent Liberal members to raise their voices on behalf of their constituents, but they do not. That is a shame, and it is eroding the democratic traditions of this chamber.
The PBO now projects that federal borrowing will increase by $732.9 billion over the next five years, and that the federal debt will continue running substantial deficits as Liberals continue to spend more in a way that outpaces even higher revenues by the government. Interest payments will be the fastest-growing federal expense, skyrocketing to $83 billion projected by 2030-31, consuming 13.6¢ of every dollar in federal revenue and costing a family of four nearly $8,000 annually compared to just $2,500 five years ago.
The government promised to lower the debt-to-GDP ratio in the last election. Then it was changed to deficit-to-GDP ratio in the last budget a year ago. This is especially concerning as the Prime Minister has doubled the deficit with the biggest deficit outside the COVID pandemic and the highest spending as a share of GDP since the 1990s debt crisis. To be clear, Conservatives think that these are necessary but insufficient fiscal anchors. The deficit must just simply be reduced.
The bare minimum is that the government keeps its word to reduce the debt and the deficit as a share of our economy, but we are not doing that. We have not seen the results that Canadians expected a year ago, and a year and a half ago, since the last election. To achieve this, the government has to look very carefully at our taxation system and overhaul it as part of the budget that is going to be announced this week. I have been pressing the finance minister and the minister responsible for small businesses to do just that.
In fact, I have introduced a couple of tax reforms I hope to see presented in the next week. The first is that the GST and HST small supplier threshold should be increased from $30,000 to $60,000 and adjusted to inflation going forward. In Canada, once a business exceeds $30,000 in annual revenue, the owner must register for GST and HST, collect and remit the tax, file returns and take on additional administrative responsibilities. This threshold has not changed for more than three decades despite inflation.
I am raising that change to the tax code in good faith, in the hope that the government will make that change because the people impacted by it the most will be, in many cases, the Canadians working the hardest and struggling the most. It is the stay-at-home mom running a side business out of her kitchen like a bakery just to pay for her kids' hockey and dance lessons. It is the father working as a car detailer on evenings and weekends to cover his kids' hockey fees or that trip to the Okanagan for that tournament their kid really wants to go to. Let us make it easier for those people. Let us encourage entrepreneurship in our tax code. We have not done that.
The second policy I would like to see the government adopt is to increase the federal small business deduction limit from $500,000 to $700,000. This limit was last increased in 2009. Since then, inflation and rising business costs have steadily eroded its value, and growing businesses are hitting that threshold sooner than policy-makers originally intended. Increasing the limit to $700,000 and also adjusting for inflation would allow businesses to keep more of their hard-earned dollars.
The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in advance of the next budget, in response to this one, have all called for an overhaul of our taxation system to reduce the taxes on our entrepreneurs. As I have said in this chamber many times before, we have lost many entrepreneurs in Canada because it is no longer profitable to be an entrepreneur like it was 25 years ago.
I say to the government that it should be more transparent with how it spends taxpayer dollars. Announcement after announcement, without the ability of Parliament to properly scrutinize how that money is being spent, is not good for anyone nor for any Canadian. It should adopt a more transparent model. Second, it should overhaul our taxation system with the lens of making Canada more competitive and more open for business.
The government should take those two points moving forward, make some necessary changes to improve the entrepreneurial landscape in Canada and provide the transparency we need to allow Canadians to see how the government is spending money and what the actual results of those expenditures are. We cannot do that today, and it needs to change.
John-Paul Danko Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I know the member opposite was really looking forward to hearing from the member for Winnipeg North.
I did listen closely to his remarks. I really agree on some of the points he made about small business, in particular, the GST threshold and small business deduction limits. I think those are really important things that have not been adjusted for much too long. They have not been adjusted for inflation as well. At the same time, I think we also need to recognize that Canada has the most competitive business tax rates in the G7 and new measures like the productivity mega deduction are helping business invest in those productivity tools that they need.
Is there anything where we are on the right track?
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member from Hamilton asked a good-faith question. If, in fact, there is a mega deduction in the upcoming budget, I believe that is generally a step in the right direction. My criticism of that policy would be that it would apply more to the attraction of foreign capital into Canada. Where I believe we need to focus is on allowing existing Canadian businesses in the existing Canadian supply chains to address the competitiveness issues we are facing there.
Luc Thériault Bloc Montcalm, QC
Mr. Speaker, as far as the economic update is concerned, the Bloc Québécois had 11 proposals to help people cope with the cost of living. One of our demands was to increase OAS by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74, since the government did it for seniors over 75. These people are really being affected by inflation and the cost of living.
Does my colleague support this measure?
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, with respect to old age security, there have been many Conservatives in our caucus supportive of some of the measures put forward by the Bloc Québécois simply because the cost of living is too high, which is a result of a government overspending and not addressing inflation appropriately.
However, I will note that the baby boomer generation in Canada has received more government money and more social programs than any generation in the history of probably mankind. I believe we need to look very closely at our old age security regime at large. Why is it that someone with a retirement income over $120,000 receives social assistance from the Government of Canada? Why is it that the income thresholds for old age security are much looser than the thresholds we apply to the Canada child benefit? Those are questions Parliament needs to ask and examine carefully.
Tony Baldinelli Conservative Niagara Falls—Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague that it is rather odd that we are talking about the budget implementation act of 2025 almost a year to the day when the budget will be delivered, which is on Thursday.
I want to go back to his comments about the growing debt and it being the fastest-growing line item of the government, and that by 2031, it will be over almost 14¢ on every dollar, and the impact that will have on Canadian families.
Bill C-31 Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2Government Orders
November 3rd, 2026 / 3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, our Parliamentary Budget Officer has been very clear that some of the accounting practices of the Prime Minister, namely, separating operating expenditures and assets into different categories when they are tied to Crown corporations is, in essence, fudging the books, so to speak. Nobody expects Canada Post to ever pay back the money the Treasury Board has given it in recent years. That is not an asset. That is money we are paying interest on, and we will in perpetuity until that is paid off.
I believe the government needs to be more transparent in its budget reporting, as the Parliamentary Budget Officer outlined, but at this point, I am also very concerned about the future of my children, the debt they are inheriting and what the results of that debt will mean for their livelihoods in the future.
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to participate in today's debate about Bill C-31, the budget 2025 implementation act, no. 2.
This debate is very timely, as has already been pointed out in the House today, because budget 2026, as we all know, is only a few days away.
Like all Canadians, I am worried about the circumstances in which our country finds itself. We are experiencing a trade war at the hands of what was once our closest ally. We are buffeted by the impact of armed conflicts in which we are happily not engaged, but which affect our lives in many ways, including through the price of goods.
In my riding of University—Rosedale in downtown Toronto, people are concerned about the cost of groceries, the availability of housing, the threat of climate change and the accessibility of the social programs they rely on. They are counting on us to do all we can to protect Canada's sovereignty and to stay true to Canadian values.
In this context, as our Prime Minister has said many times, we are focused on the factors we can control. Happily, that list is a long one. There is much we can do to support one another and to build a more self-reliant economy that leaves no one behind.
For this reason, I am eager to see what measures the next federal budget contains, and I am confident it will build on the important foundation that was presented a year ago in budget 2025.
Passing Bill C‑31 would be a crucial legislative step forward in delivering on the priorities of budget 2025 and our plan to build a stronger, more resilient Canada. Our government is focused on what we can control: strengthening the Canadian economy, expanding our international trade partnerships, managing public finances responsibly and helping Canadians who are feeling the pressure of daily costs.
Bill C-31 is a piece of legislation that I have become quite familiar with. As members of the Standing Committee on Finance, my colleagues, some of whom are in the House today, and I were tasked with reviewing and considering this bill at committee. As part of that process, our committee heard from a wide range of stakeholders, many of whom spoke positively about the bill and some of whom offered constructive feedback. I am proud to say that, in response to some of that feedback, as well as what I heard from constituents in my own riding, I was able to advance three amendments to Bill C-31, which were ultimately adopted by the committee.
I will come back to those shortly, but I first want to speak to some of the important changes to the tax system that we find in this bill.
A robust and efficient tax system is what allows the government to support Canadians, protect the essential services they rely on, and build necessary infrastructure, as well as millions of homes. Bill C-31 will implement key measures outlined in budget 2025 aimed at protecting the integrity and improving the efficiency of Canada's tax system.
Bill C-31 proposes numerous measures aimed at improving tax fairness. It would strengthen anti-avoidance rules to counter the actions of those who attempt to use sophisticated transactions to transfer their assets from one trust to another or to render their tax liabilities uncollectible. It would limit delays in the payment of refundable tax on investment income when corporations use multi-tiered corporate structures with different fiscal year ends. It would also implement the remaining major components of global minimum tax, which is intended to ensure that large multinational businesses pay their fair share, no matter where their profits are earned.
However, let us not forget that our tax system does more than just collect money from those who owe it. It is also a mechanism for supporting those who need it most. I want to focus on a key part of the tax changes to Bill C-31 that would support people living on low incomes. That program is the commitment to automatic federal benefits and automatic tax filing found in this bill.
An important aspect of tax fairness is ensuring that Canadians have access to all the support measures available to them. We know, for instance, that a disproportionate number of low-income Canadians do not file their taxes. This means that people who most need benefits often do not receive them.
Bill C-31 proposes to allow the CRA to file a tax return on behalf of certain eligible individuals with low incomes in simple tax situations who do not owe tax and do not file themselves. Many people with low incomes in our country are missing out on benefits and credit payments because they cannot, for any number of reasons, fill out and submit their annual tax and benefit return. Often, they are unaware the government owes them money.
Whether for reasons of literacy, illness, the chaos of life and poverty, or other legitimate priorities, they are not filing their taxes, and therefore, they are not getting money to which they are entitled. Because of this, seniors are losing out on benefits like the Canadian dental care plan. Single parents are not receiving the Canada child benefit to help make ends meet. Young people and workers are going without the Canada groceries and essentials benefit or the Canada workers' benefit, which could ease their expenses for a week, a month or more.
The most important determinant of health is a person's income. In addition to being a financial policy, this would be a health intervention, an intervention that would benefit 5.5 million Canadians. I am personally very passionate about this opportunity.
Indeed, we know that this bill would affect health through a wide range of mechanisms, so before my time concludes, I would like to shift my focus to another such part of the bill, which is the proposed amendments to the Pest Control Products Act. The Pest Control Products Act came out of necessity to protect the health of Canadians and our environment. It is an important piece of legislation that places the regulation of pesticides rightly in the hands of Canada's Minister of Health.
Through Bill C-31, the government seeks to make amendments to the act in order to reduce regularly scheduled reviews of low-risk products where nothing has changed since the last review while maintaining a focus on ensuring regular review of high-risk products or products where our understanding of risk has changed. While the goals of these amendments, such as improved efficiency and better use of limited resources, are laudable, we did hear from stakeholders who wanted us to be even more clear that health and environmental concerns remain the primary focus in the review process.
This is why I introduced three amendments at the committee stage, which were ultimately adopted by the committee. These were the amendments: first, inserting language to ensure that, when conducting an assessment of a pest control product, the Minister of Health will apply a scientifically based approach and take into account government policy that prioritizes the precautionary principle; second, inserting language to clarify that subsection 17(1) of the Pest Control Products Act continues to apply, as this section of the act specifies that the minister must initiate a special review of a pesticide where they have reasonable grounds to believe that the health or environmental risks of the product are unacceptable; and third, adding a transparency requirement for the minister to make public any decision not to initiate a re-evaluation of a pest control product and the reasons for that decision within 90 days of the decision being made.
I believe, as did my committee colleagues, that these amendments have strengthened an already strong bill. I hope this chamber feels the same way.
In conclusion, the world beyond our borders is becoming increasingly uncertain, but Canada is confronting this reality from a position of strength. Bill C-31 would implement key measures from budget 2025 aimed at protecting the integrity of our tax system and making it fairer and more efficient.
When we work continuously to improve our public institutions, that builds the public's trust.
I urge all members of Parliament to pass Bill C-31 without delay.
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. Incidentally, I want to congratulate her on her French. In her speech, she told us that Canadians were relying on the government. There is one segment of the population that certainly relies heavily on the government: the people in the oil and gas industries.
As for our demands for the next budget, the Bloc Québécois' proposal is simple. We could raise $25.7 billion over five years by eliminating direct and indirect federal government subsidies to the oil and gas sector. Let us not forget that the oil and gas sector is making record profits, that it is currently exempt from the tariffs, that 60% of it is owned by Americans, and that 90% of its production is sold to Americans. It makes no sense for us to collectively give so much public money to this sector. Does my colleague agree with me?
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Mr. Speaker, we are in the midst of a transition. We are moving from an economy that depended on the oil sector to a system based on renewable electricity and renewable energy. That is what we are focusing on right now as a government. We need to put the necessary infrastructure in place to make this transition to wind and hydroelectric power, which, incidentally, is very important in Quebec. For me, the most important thing is to build this infrastructure.
Louis Villeneuve Liberal Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Mr. Speaker, as members know, my colleague is a family doctor. She is an expert on public health policy.
In her opinion, how does a person's income affect their health?
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Mr. Speaker, there are ways of ensuring that an individual's or a family's actual income is sufficient to purchase basic necessities. Obviously, that is very important for health. However, there is also the issue of uncertainty. People who are living in poverty live in uncertainty, and that also has an impact on their physical and mental health. Programs such as the Canada child benefit for Canadian families with children or the guaranteed income supplement for seniors across Canada are very important for reducing uncertainty. At the end of the day, this is not just a financial initiative, but a health initiative as well.
Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC
Mr. Speaker, I felt that it was really rather unfair for my hon. colleague from University—Rosedale, as someone with such a distinguished medical career, to suddenly find herself on the finance committee with Bill C-30 barrelling through, which eroded the Pest Control Products Act in ways that were not amended in the bill. I do appreciate the amendments she made to Bill C-31.
Does she not feel, as a member of the finance committee, that it would have been preferable if changes to what is fundamentally a health and environment piece of legislation had gone to those committees to have adequate expert witnesses testify rather than to only the finance committee?
Danielle Martin Liberal University—Rosedale, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the interventions she made at the finance committee on both bills, Bill C-30 and Bill C-31.
The reality of a budget bill is that they are broad and touch on many aspects. However, they do come to the finance committee. I was happy, as a member of the committee, to hear the feedback we heard from a wide variety of experts, including the member opposite herself, on their concerns with respect to the regulations we are discussing. I feel that that feedback was taken into account. I am happy to say that I will be happily supporting the bill.