The way I view the government's statement about its plans for an operating budget balance—whereas running a capital budget deficit is something that it would be more comfortable with for a period of time—is as more of a political statement by the government. In my view, it's a statement about the direction of how it plans to manage the overall fiscal framework going forward.
In my reading of the budget and everything that you just described, I don't see that changing the accounting of the federal government in any way. In particular, it doesn't change the fact that a dollar borrowed has to be paid back and has to be paid back with interest. To the extent that the generally accepted accounting principles are going to continue to apply, the PBO is absolutely within its mandate to support parliamentarians with the elaboration of a number of different parliamentary fiscal anchors, if you will.
Yes, let's continue to look at debt to GDP. Let's look at deficits as a share of GDP. Let's look at the measure of how much in revenue is going to debt charges in any given year.
That aspect of having a number of different measures and looking at a number of different scenarios, I think, will give a lot more clarity to Parliament as the government steers through its plans to rebuild infrastructure, defence and so on. Does it remain affordable under different scenarios, as we've heard earlier: war, interest rates, inflation, oil prices? Let's work it through and see where it takes us. If it's going in the wrong direction, then let me help you put those constraints around the government.