Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the speech from my colleague opposite, I have to wonder if we are reading from the same document when we are looking at the budget, although it is likely that my colleague reads most of these types of documents with blue-tinted glasses because we are still stuck in an era when we are talking about government debt as if it is a Visa card or a mortgage and we have to pay it down and live in prosperity debt-free as a nation. It is a bit of a fallacy.
When I read the budget, I saw investments in child care, investments in jobs, investments in the environment and the pursuit of a net-zero future for all Canadians, and indeed, as my colleague would know, investments in tourism and leisure.
If we are going to start taking things out of the budget to lessen the debt load of the country and invariably add to the debt load of Canadians in terms of personal debt, which deputy chief economist Benjamin Tal and many others indicate is the most serious form of debt in Canada, where would he start? Would he start cutting money to tourism and leisure, to families or to the environment? Which is the first one to go?