In terms of the multiplier, I'm going to start the question and then ask either Chris or Mostafa to help me with the answer.
The rankings show that you tend to get more bang for your bucks, so to speak, if you put it in infrastructure-style investments, because they will create future productivity enhancements, for the most part. So in the examples you proposed, whether it's infrastructure-style urban roads transfers versus schools, both have long-term kinds of effects, productivity effects. Both are expected to have a multiplier greater than one. The numbers that are shown in the Department of Finance are in the 1.5 range.
We also have automatic stabilizers. Employment insurance is an example of an automatic stabilizer. When the economy weakens, people have the benefit of these programs.
It's pretty much guaranteed that people who find themselves unemployed are going to be using that money, so at a minimum we know that it's going to be replacing it one for one. But you don't get the long-term stimulative kind of effect that will give you a multiplier higher than one.
Chris and Mostafa, would you like to add to that?