Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I would like to talk about something else. I agree that, if we compare ourselves to our OECD partners, the tax cut we're proposing would bring us back to a more comparable rate, and we'd even be in a better position than our partners.
When it comes to the fiscal framework, it's important to remember that we're talking about a difference of approximately $9 billion a year compared to the proposal set out in Bill C‑4. We all voted in favour of it. However, the proposal put forward by the Conservative Party is $9 billion a year, forever or almost forever.
So this is a recurring effect, which risks mortgaging our fiscal room for manoeuvre. As my colleagues mentioned, that would mean that we would necessarily have to reduce transfers to the provinces or transfers to individuals. I'm thinking in particular of the old age security pension or the Canada child benefit.
Those social programs are much more important, and we feel very strongly about them. I think Canadians generally like that kind of social program as well. That's what makes Canada what it is, and what makes it different from our American neighbours.
Our colleagues' proposals are headed in a different direction, in a direction where individuals should be able to rely on less government support. They should be on their own. They'll work hard, they'll have more money in their pockets, and that's it.
In Canada, that isn't how we developed our sense of solidarity and mutual assistance, which is very different from individualism. I think this individualism is somewhat hidden behind this much greater reduction in the tax burden. It will inevitably have to be offset by much more aggressive spending cuts.
My colleagues have often said that the deficit is terrible. I assume they would be proposing very deep spending cuts in their platform. The only way to do that would be to make massive cuts to social programs, transfers to individuals or transfers to the provinces.
I don't think that's what Canadians want. The other way would be to let the debt grow. That would be extremely inconsistent on the part of our colleagues, because they have been telling us repeatedly for months that the debt has already ballooned out of control. However, that isn't the case. On the other hand, if we went ahead with bigger tax cuts without having massive spending cuts to match, that's what would happen.
In fact, we saw in the United Kingdom not long ago what this kind of thing could lead to. Under Prime Minister Liz Truss, the new British Conservative government had the brilliant idea of implementing massive tax cuts. In the literature, this has been referred to as the Liz Truss moment. At that time, there was a kind of total rebellion in the financial markets. They told the British finance minister that the government couldn't do this and that, if it did, the financial markets would withdraw their confidence in British debt. They claimed that this would lead to a real crisis. In fact, it led to the end of that government, which didn't last long.
Are our Conservative friends leading us toward a kind of Liz Truss moment? This party claims to be the party of fiscal responsibility. However, it would be quite spectacular if this party ended up killing the fiscal leeway we have, which now allows us to look to the future. That future is quite worrying, since our neighbour isn't very reliable at the moment.
As a government, we have to be prepared to support the economy and support businesses that are victims of the trade war that exists with our neighbours. This is about keeping the Canadian economy afloat until we can have a trade agreement that works to our advantage. Nor are we going to sign just anything and put ourselves in a much more difficult situation than the one we currently find ourselves in.
As the Prime Minister said in question period today, we need massive investment in our economy. We believe in the government's ability to invest, but to do so, we need access to the financial market, and we need our financial framework to be credible.
We can all judge that on November 4, when the budget is announced. We find it credible, but if we were to accept this amendment, it would no longer be credible. By doing what our Conservative friends are proposing to do, we would be dangerously close to a Liz Truss moment. We clearly can't and don't want to see that happen. We still have a triple-A credit rating, and the debt-to-GDP ratio is manageable. We want to continue in that direction.
I'll leave it there for now. I'll turn it over to my colleagues, if they want to add anything.