That is useful information. We know that, and precisely what we would like to accomplish is to go to what Monsieur Garon was saying at first.
This is a matter of disrespect for institutions, since the institution in question is the House of Commons, which voted on Monday to approve this budget.
The House now wishes to move on to the next stage, which is the debate, discussion and analysis of Bill C-15 on budget implementation. I therefore believe that this should be our mission. This should be our primary role, precisely to maintain respect for the institution that is the House of Commons.
In a spirit of collaboration, we have therefore proposed adding Mr. Kevin Page to Mr. Garon’s proposal. We have also proposed that this discussion, this analysis and this debate, which would take place at our next meeting, be part of the pre‑study of the budget implementation bill. I do not think this is so far removed from what Mr. Garon is proposing.
Frankly, I don’t understand what the obstacle is and so I am somewhat mystified. In my opinion, it is important to move forward with this step because it is urgent that we do our job and implement the budget that the House has approved. It is urgent because the current situation is particularly complex. Obviously, the decisions made by our neighbours in the United States regarding tariff policy are, to put it generously, a little chaotic.
These decisions have had several impacts. First, they have created enormous economic uncertainty, not only in North America, but around the world. This uncertainty has caused a marked slowdown in the Canadian economy. Yes, the economy is slowing down. The second quarter was negative. We believe that, in terms of GDP growth, we will return to a positive situation in the third quarter.
It is obvious that the economy remains very weak due to this uncertainty and the chaotic economic policy of our neighbours. Very few companies are investing in anything until they know what the rules of the game are. This chaotic tariff policy has also put upward pressure on prices, particularly in a sector that our Conservative friends often mention, namely food. Food prices remain high, but this is really the result, the consequence of the American tariff policy, which has caused grocery prices to rise on both sides of the border.
Inflation remains a challenge. In Canada, it is under control and within the Bank of Canada’s target range. However, given the real challenges arising from upward pressure on the prices of essential goods such as food, the situation remains complex. This not only has an impact on everyday life, but also has macroeconomic effects because if people have to spend a larger portion of their budget on essential goods, they are obviously less inclined to invest or spend on other things. This contributes to the economic slowdown.
In light of the foregoing, I reiterate the need to begin work on implementing the budget. What we are facing now is not a simple cyclical fluctuation that will resolve itself in two or three quarters. It is not that at all. As our Prime Minister has said many times, this is a disruption.
We are facing a disruption, a structural shock affecting the Canadian economy, which is why we need to act quickly. That is why our budget, which was tabled and passed in the House of Commons, provides for huge investments in the Canadian economy. The budget does indeed call for a $78 billion deficit, but now is the time to face this uncertainty and help the economy to get through this period. The economy needs government support.
However, for this support to materialize and begin to take effect, we must do our job, and after a thorough analysis and study, implement the budget. I therefore fully agree with Mr. Turnbull’s subamendment that we invite the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer and Mr. Page. We would then spend the next two hours in committee questioning these two individuals. This would be part of the preliminary study to launch the process of implementing the budget bill.
Another issue is also particularly important; it is a problem we have had in Canada for a long time, and that is significantly low productivity. There is a lack of productivity growth. Once again, this budget contains some very interesting measures to boost productivity.
This brings us to the heart of Mr. Garon’s motion, in which he protests that the definition of capital investments is, at the very least, vague and seeks to hide something.
However, we are not hiding anything at all. All the information is there. And as my colleague Mr. Turnbull as well as Mr. Page mentioned, this is not a change in public accounting. What we are changing is the way the information is presented. We are not hiding any information. Ultimately, we are adding information so that Canadians are well aware of and well informed about government measures.
We have broken down government spending into operating expenses and investments. Everything is there. We are not hiding anything. The bottom line of the budget is clearly stated. It is a deficit of $78 billion. We are not trying to hide the size of this deficit, which is significant. Once again, $78 billion is a considerable amount, but it is 2.5% of Canada’s GDP.
When it comes to changes in public finances, I suggest we don’t look at them in absolute terms. We must always put them into perspective in relation to the size of the economy to determine whether they are exceptional, and whether we have the capacity to absorb such deficits. A deficit of 2.5% of Canadian GDP is not unprecedented. Unfortunately, in Canadian history, we have had other deficits that were much higher than 2.5% of GDP.
When we make comparisons with other countries, a deficit of 2.5% of GDP is quite manageable. I would remind you of the discussions that were held in Europe when they were trying to create the single currency, the euro. Mr. Garon might like me to mention this. The Maastricht rules were created. At that time, the Europeans clearly stated that European Union member countries should commit to having public deficits that did not exceed 3% of GDP. That was the golden rule of Maastricht.
Our deficit, which is supposedly huge, is equivalent to 2.5% of GDP. This deficit will decrease over the coming years.