Of course. We have always respected that and I think that you have always shown caution. You do not hazard into the minefield of commenting on political choices, that is certain. You assess for us the probable results of the choices you witness.
Another term that has been used here today is “priority”. So if the priority remains unchanged, certain results are probable. But if the priority becomes to react to an apprehended crisis that they themselves have created...
When you grant $60 billion in total tax reductions to the biggest corporations, and empty the coffers of employment insurance, which then are empty in periods of high unemployment, those are choices. That money was put there by all businesses, both those who were losing money and those who were making some. But since the priority seems to be to provide assistance to the big corporations, the most profitable ones, it is very likely—and it is our job as politicians to point this out—that the choice will be an across-the-board reduction of program expenditures, just as they granted “wall to wall” tax reductions to the most profitable companies without making job creation a priority, nor productivity. It is predictable that we are going to see “wall to wall” cuts. They don't want to know, managing this doesn't interest them.
And so I would like to know what you think, without inviting you to comment on these choices; what is the probable consequence of “wall to wall” cuts in program expenditures? The government is going to try to present this as something positive: we are reducing expenditures. But what are the possible negative impacts of such a choice on society, in your opinion?