“The government is cutting short debate far too often. This budget bill includes surprise rules, like deregulating dangerous pesticides, that were not in the economic plan. I want the member to explain why we are not given enough time to study these bills.”

“Madam Speaker, I suppose I will echo the comments of my friend from the Conservative benches, the member for Edmonton West, a moment ago. The programming motions, the time allocations, are becoming routine. They used to be rare exceptions. I am honoured to have been serving here for the last 15 years, so saying something as simple as “I have never seen anything like it” might mean something. The spring economic statement did not, in any way, foretell what would be in Bill C-30. A budget implementation bill is supposed to be about implementing what one reads in the economic statement. This one did not make anything of it. There is one line where we were going to include that regulatory agencies get to consider food security and food prices. It did not say that we plan to deregulate pesticides so that we can use them when they are too dangerous. I am wondering if the hon. member would explain why it is that we do not have adequate time to study bills in this place under the new administration.”

“I want the government to slow down and stop rushing this budget bill through. It hides big changes, like letting dangerous pesticides be used for economic reasons, that have barely been studied or debated.”

“Madam Speaker, over the course of this debate, I have heard a number of things said that need to be referenced. As my hon. friend from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake pointed out, we have actually had one hour, or maybe a bit more by now, for the programming motion we are debating right now, and now we have closure on that programming motion, which is all about speeding things up. The hon. member says that the government was elected and “we were elected”. I remember the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie pointing out that climate change was mentioned 28 times in what the government was elected to do. Pipelines were not mentioned once. I will remind the hon. member that, in the spring economic statement, there is no reference at all to deciding that, if a pesticide is considered too dangerous for use, that decision can be overturned for economic reasons. That is now buried in an omnibus budget bill that only got studied at the finance committee and, even there, very briefly. That is not due to the Conservative filibuster, but to the priority of the whole committee in what witnesses got called. Therefore, I beg of the government to not push this through without taking the time necessary, to not push through those buried bits in the omnibus budget bill without any real discussion or debate.”