We're talking about the budget. We're talking about the deficit. We're talking about the necessity to move ahead with the budget implementation act, and we are suggesting that we include the discussion with Mr. Page and Mr. Jacques within the prestudy of that.
The reason I was trying to explain why that is necessary is that the government felt that we had to intervene. We had to support the economy with massive investments, which we did. We are not hiding anything.
The deficit of 2.5% of GDP is entirely manageable for the Canadian federal government. It is within reason, particularly since, for the most significant portion of that deficit, those funds are going to be used to invest and to improve the supply side of the economy to make sure that we do have sufficient productive capacity so that we can grow in the future and grow in a non-inflationary way.
Madam Chair, in the meantime, we also need to realize that if we do nothing.... What this international situation has already caused is a lowering of the growth path for Canadian GDP. Canadian GDP is already on a lower path. It will still be going up in a kind of cyclical way, but in the absence of government intervention and sufficient government fiscal impetus to the economy, we would not be able to return to the pre-shock level of GDP activity.
All of this is to say that there is a sense of urgency in proceeding with our analysis and discussion of the budget implementation act and that we do that as soon as possible. In the prestudy to that analysis, if we can have Mr. Page and Mr. Jacques come here to discuss it with us, then I think we would all be better off, and we could start this very important work.
One should not take things for granted. Without public support at this very critical time, the Canadian economy could slide into a situation where we really don't want to go. We already have some sectors that have been targeted by our neighbours with specific tariffs—namely steel and aluminum but also lumber and, of course, automobiles. These are important sectors in our economy. This just shows that we need to get going with our own process of redirecting and making sure that the Canadian economy is on a more resilient and more stable path for the future.
This moment is not the one in which to start imposing very restrictive fiscal policy, as our Conservative friends appear to suggest. In recent discussions and in recent statements in the House of Commons, they view that this deficit is way too high.
The conclusion I take from those statements is that they would rather have $40 billion to $50 billion less spending so that the deficit would be smaller. However, at this particular point, if we were to have such a drastic reduction in public investment, that is what some economists usually refer to—and Monsieur Garon knows this very well—as toxic austerity, and I don't think we want to go there.
That would certainly plunge the Canadian economy into a deep recession if we were to do that at this particular time and adopt a superrestrictive fiscal policy. That's one of the issues, for example, we could discuss with Mr. Page and Mr. Jacques. What is their view of the role of fiscal policy? What do they think would happen to the Canadian economy if, in 2026, we were to cut $40 billion to $50 billion from planned investment, as we've stated in our budget? That's why it's very important to start this work.
I think there is general agreement that, yes, we should have Monsieur Jacques and then Monsieur Page appear before the committee. I think it's fairly consensual that we do that, but that appears to be something that our friends on the other side are not willing to accept, which is unfortunate. We think it's reasonable, on our side, to do it that way, to get the prestudy going and then to get going on the budget implementation act.
Madam Chair, for now, I would stop here, but I would certainly allow my colleagues to express their opinions as well, and I will return with some more comments.