That's a very good question, and obviously a very timely question, because as you said, governments around the world are looking at stimulus packages now and there seems to be a broad consensus. What Canada is doing now, and as is noted in the budget, is very consistent with what the International Monetary Fund is asking both in terms of size of package and actually, in some cases, even on a principal basis: timely, temporary, targeted, and diversified. So I think the government is trying to follow best practices in that sense.
In terms of the more analytical question about looking at what's behind various—economists use these terms—multiplier-style effects, whether it's on the tax side or on the expenditure side, often those measures are created using econometric models, using past experience. You're almost right there, so you need to throw a flag up. When you look at those relative multipliers, which are actually highlighted in annex 1 of the budget, there is full transparency from the point of view of the finance projections, but they are based on past experience.
As you noted, sir, as well, in 2008, which was an incredible year—actually we've never seen a year quite like this before—no one predicted that we would have some of the banking failures that we saw in the United States in the fall of 2008. So we're in a different environment right now.
But again, as to what's behind the stimulus measures on the revenue side, most economists are looking at the incentive effects and leakage effects. By incentive effects, is it money that will actually stimulate demand, not just in dollars that are put back into the economy but stimulate future demand? If you reduce capital taxes, for example, it may encourage future investments, which will stimulate productivity.