Thank you, Minister.
I'm looking at your projections, Minister, with respect to your underlying surplus projections of 2007-08. The Conference Board of Canada says it's a 4.4% increase; the University of Toronto, 4.5%; Global Insight, 5.4%; and the Centre for Spatial Economics, 7.6%. You choose the high end of the range. In fact, you choose 7.3%, which is almost as high the Centre for Spatial Economics, instead of choosing the average. You're almost two points higher than the average. You do that both in 2006 and 2007.
On the next page over, you then go on to say there are a fair number of risks here. There's a lower commodity prices risk. There's a U.S. housing market risk. There's a global current accounts risk, etc. Very conveniently, on the following couple of pages, you then say a one-point error is about $2.6 billion. If in fact you are wrong and the average is right, you've just made about a $5.2-billion error. By my calculations, according to your own projections, that puts you into deficit rather quickly. Your planning surplus in 2007-08 is $3.5 billion, yet a two-point swing—in other words, what everybody else says, as opposed to what you say—puts you into deficit.
Minister, why would you eliminate prudence? Why would you move away from taking, if you will, the average projection of private sector economists and pick the high end of the range? Are you just fattening up the top end?