Thank you.
I'm going to take the next round as the chair.
Mr. Heath, I appreciate your columns. I read them quite regularly.
I want to get you to respond to Mr. Cross's analysis, though, because I think you and others on the panel are suggesting we should not move to more programs or benefits that are universal in nature, that we should means test them.
One of your statements was, “I would be inclined to instead consider an increase in the Canada child tax benefit to provide more benefits for low-income and middle-class Canadians while reducing or negating benefits for those whose income exceeds a certain threshold.”
How do you respond to Mr. Cross's analysis, which says that the progressivity of transfer payments and taxes has led to a situation whereby the top two quintiles are putting more in than they're certainly getting out, and the bottom three are certainly receiving more benefits than they pay in taxation.
He has launched a fairly substantive analysis here. Do you disagree with his analysis, or do you think we should go even further in terms of...