Something I've noted is a bit of a disconnect between....You say there's excess capacity in the economy; that's certainly true. We're getting different signals through the labour market and through product markets, so it seems as if the unemployment rate is around 7% and that there may be room to get more Canadians back to work, as you say, and then on the product market, we might be 1% below potential, that type of thing.
Certainly at the aggregate level, it doesn't seem as if there's lots of room in the labour market, although certainly we could be doing better things there. It depends on whether the unemployment rate in Canada could be 6% rather than 7%. In that case, there's certainly a lot of excess capacity there that could be used.
In terms of the planning horizon that should be used for infrastructure projects, as I said earlier in my remarks, there's the short term and the long term. I think it would be a mistake to look at most of these infrastructure projects on a short-term horizon. I think we had done infrastructure over two years in the economic action plan, which provided a lot of stimulus, a lot of good jobs, but I think there's a difference between filling potholes and building roads and bridges. If you're looking across what can be done in two years, I think people have to see that it takes a while to work with multiple levels of government, and the horizon of five years may not be long enough; a horizon of 20 years may not be long enough for some projects that need to get done. I think it just depends on which project it is and looking to get the most important ones first on the priority list and pushing them out the door when they're ready.