Finance committee  It absolutely is not and the mistake we made over that era was to increase our debt-to-GDP ratio to have deficits that were in the high single digits as a per cent of GDP and those are certainly mistakes we don't want to repeat. To make the context of today's 30% debt-to-GDP ratio in the context of the 1990s we would have to add over $900 billion of debt to get back to the 1990s level of debt-to GDP, but then we're at an interest rate environment that is less than one-third of what we had in the 1990s, so the idea that the 1990s is a relevant threat for today is simply not in the numbers.

Finance committee  I think what's always important is to look at the debt-to-GDP ratio and whether it's going up or down in the context of the macroeconomic environment of the day. The member will know that in the 1970s we saw interest rates approaching double digits, and in the later 1970s—

Finance committee  We saw interest rates approaching double digits in the 1970s. Today we have an entirely different atmosphere and different macroeconomic environment. When I talk about macroeconomic policy, I prefer to look at the calendar we have and the macroeconomic environment that we have today.

Finance committee  Thanks for the question. Again, it's good to see my former classmate. I note that the poverty reduction act is part of the BIA. I think what's important in thinking about a poverty strategy is to have a strategy that looks both at short-run measures, for example, for seniors who are already retired, to make sure that they do not have to live their older years in poverty, and to look at families who are right now struggling with the needs of children, to make sure their incomes are sufficient as well.

Finance committee  I think it's great to bring this up because, as Mr. Cross mentioned, the new tax regime in the United States is something and was something that I think deserved a response, and we did see that response in the fall economic statement. One could respond to the U.S. fiscal situation in one of two ways.

Finance committee  I think the member is correct that the role and impact of measures like the guaranteed income supplement are different across different demographics and different communities. People have different backgrounds in Canada. That's one of the reasons I have always been in favour of the gender-based analysis plus that has been part of the budget process over the past couple of years.

Finance committee  I will preface my remarks by saying—

Finance committee  —on both fronts that you suggest, both the financial impact and the social impact—

Finance committee  Sorry.

Finance committee  No problem. On both the fiscal balance and the social balance question, I will preface my remarks by saying we should take no lessons from the United States, where they currently have a budget deficit in the order of 5% of GDP, with a debt-to-GDP ratio that is growing. On the social side we've certainly seen a flow of both refugees and high-skilled tech workers into Canada that Bloomberg has referred to as the “human stimulus” that has been greatly beneficial to not just our current economy, but its long-run prospects.

Finance committee  Yes. I think the self-employment piece is very important. I agree with the member on that. As she mentioned, a lot of people, when they hit retirement, do so in a way that is different from a traditional path where you have a work life and then a clean break and retirement. People have found new ways to do this.

Finance committee  Are we good to go?

Finance committee  Great. Thank you for your invitation. My name is Kevin Milligan, and I am a Professor of Economics at the University of British Columbia, here in Vancouver. I will direct my remarks to the changes to the guaranteed income supplement that are proposed in Bill C-97. The GIS was introduced in 1967, and has grown into a vital part of Canada's retirement income security system for seniors.

Finance committee  Mr. Easter, I can hear you loudly and clearly across the country.

Finance committee  I would push back against the notion that we know that a certain number of people are incorporating solely for the tax benefit and bring it back to the previous member's question. When you are thinking about that decision to incorporate or not, there are definitely legal issues involved.