Mr. Chair, my colleague, Ms. Jansen, has put her finger on the real problem here.
First you table a budget, and then you ask for the borrowing authorities that match what your budget calls for. I've met with numerous economists since I was appointed critic, and I can tell you that they all agree that it is much more preferable to table a budget first, then match your borrowing authority to that budget. That's a big problem here.
Also—and this is my final point—respectfully, to Mr. Fragiskatos's point, this is not about debt-to-GDP ratio, because we know the finance minister has not done what her mandate letter instructs her to do, which is to implement a fiscal anchor. I know economists are all calling for there to be a fiscal anchor. They might not agree on exactly what that anchor should be, but it is absolutely critical for the minister to have some guidance, some rules, by which her spending is governed.
Here we have a minister coming forward and asking for the authority to borrow money when we don't know what her plan is. That budget should have been delivered before this debt ceiling increase was requested. That's my big problem, which is why we have the amendment on the table. I believe it's the reasonable way of approaching it.