Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon everyone.
This amendment by the Conservative Party is very concerning, in our view. As mentioned, the amendment would increase the cost of the tax measure from $5.5 billion a year to about $14 billion a year. We feel it would be irresponsible to alter the government's fiscal framework in this way.
This amendment comes as a surprise. Since Parliament resumed in the fall, the Conservatives have constantly argued that the fiscal framework put forward by the government is not balanced, creates a huge deficit and will cause inflation. This measure passed in the House with the support of the Liberals and the Conservatives. We were all in agreement on Bill C‑4 and the tax reduction it proposed. Now the Conservatives are proposing an amendment that would completely change the size of the tax cut and further raise the deficit.
My colleague Mr. Kelly said the Conservatives would offset that with budget-balancing measures. I assume they would be cost-cutting measures, but we haven't received any of those details. Adopting this amendment would create a huge hole in the public purse, so we would really like to know what those cost-cutting measures are.
According to what we've heard in the House of Commons so far, our Conservative colleagues do not seem to support the social programs in place. I assume they would make cuts to those programs, which they were never really on board with in the first place. I'm talking about the Canadian dental care plan, the child care program and other such programs they don't seem to care much about.
The increased tax reduction they are proposing would come with a trade-off: major, if not draconian, cuts to social programming. They did indeed say that they would balance the budget.
You know, I've done this kind of work before, and I must tell you that cutting government spending on social programs is far from straightforward. Often, it has unintended consequences.
I'd like to hear what the witnesses think about that trade-off. What I mean is the fact that the major tax cut being proposed, on one hand, would lead to a reduction in social programming, on the other.
I ask the question with a particular thought in mind, the many people with very little taxable income who benefit from those programs. They already pay little in taxes, so a tax cut doesn't tend to be as helpful to low-income earners as the social programs currently in place.
Could someone answer that question, or would you prefer not to?