I should say that I agree with my two colleagues about the importance of public infrastructure investments. The study that was done for us by the Centre for Spatial Economics was interesting. What it showed over the medium term was that the increase in business productivity that results from a well-designed program does generate GDP growth, and thus higher revenues down the road. At least in an optimistic scenario, even if you are deficit financing that to begin with, you would be taking care of that deficit you were building up through revenues down the road. I think that's a really important point.
I guess the argument I'm trying to make, and my concern, is that concerns about deficits are going to derail some of the social spending commitments that the government has made, or put them under pressure. I think that if we're going to have sustained spending on social programs, ultimately that has to be financed out of the federal fiscal tax base. Growth alone won't take care of a significant improvement on a social program such as child benefits.
I think the government has said that there would be a review of tax expenditures. I would certainly encourage that. I guess I'd go on the record as being sceptical about the middle-class tax cut. I suspect that's not going to be quickly reversed. The problem with those permanent tax cuts is that they become very difficult to ratchet back once they're in place. I still think there's a case for a corporate tax increase, with the proviso, I would say, that I think there are more effective ways of stimulating business investment than just cutting the corporate tax rate. I would use that to finance other business assistance procedures.
I hope I've answered your question. I missed a bit of it in translation.