Thank you, Mr. Chair. I forgot where I left off. As I said earlier, this is simply a tool to help mitigate the uncertainty that this government and a lot of past governments have faced in dealing with, really, a lot of unknown variables. I do not hold the department in any way, shape or form liable because they don’t know, and they’re doing their best effort to predict what they have at their disposal. However, a five-year rolling average will do nothing more than create the same mess that we are in this fiscal year.
The motion speaks to a stabilization fund, which means that that threshold is picked that would make it the most effective possible for this government to function. On years of high, you put it in the bank, on years of low, you take it out of the bank, but for predictability and for the ability of this government collectively, as a consensus, that we do our forecasting, we are going forward with solid numbers. We are not guessing and a five-year rolling average just won’t cut the mustard in my books.
This will offer the right tool. This is a public accounting standard of best practice that’s used in a lot of jurisdictions all over the world, not just in Canada, and I know the Auditor General of Canada has approved such standards. So I will let my colleagues dial in if they want to comment on it as well. Thank you.