Sure. Thank you for the question.
Look, it's troubling, to say the least. This would be troubling even if we did have a budget. We don't. I think the very fact that the minister has committed to spend money without knowing what to spend it on is getting the entire budgetary process backwards.
In a policy debate or discussion, normally you figure out what you want to do, you figure out how much money you need for it, and then you make your case for it. That's not what she has done here. She has already committed to spending money, but she doesn't know what she wants to spend it on. That is a recipe for trouble.
What's also curious.... I cited some of the statistics earlier about overspending, and again I am not suggesting that the government had to get it perfect. I understand that they were in a hurry and that not everything was going to be perfect, but by their own admission.... I believe the term she used was “pre-loaded stimulus”. We have seen that even into the lower income deciles, a lot of Canadians are banking a lot of this money, so the minister has said, “Well, we've preloaded this stimulus, so hopefully when things turn around, people will go out and spend.” However, she also wants to spend the $100 billion in the name of stimulus.
I don't understand. She has spent more than she planned to, but she says, “Don't worry, that will turn out to be stimulus”, and she also says that we still need to spend $100 billion; we just don't know on what.
Look, if the minister has a plan, I think she's entitled to make the case for that. She should do it in a budget. She should not be asking Parliament to increase the debt ceiling unless she can present a budget and explain what she wants to spend the money on.