Yes. I think the only caution I was offering to the committee was, as I said, based on the experience when I looked back at the 2009 package. The argument that economists almost always make is that it should be timely, targeted, and temporary, and on this idea of temporary infrastructure, I think that's a problem. This is the reason people argue that we shouldn't use fiscal stimulus to micromanage the economy and the cycles, because it takes so long to get things going. Infrastructure is an area where I think that in general it takes things quite a while to get going.
If your point is that the municipal, provincial, and territorial levels need to do some work before things go to tender and go out, I think that's certainly the case. As I cited before in some of the data, when the government allocates money, that's conditional if it's going to be a third, a third, and a third. Not all that money is necessarily going to be spent because of cost considerations, timing, or that type of thing. It's possible, in terms of ratcheting down expectations—again, as I said—just to make sure that the money that's allocated is allocated not necessarily in a time-sensitive window, but in a flexible manner so that municipalities can access it. If it takes two or three years, so be it.
I think there are certainly detailed issues, and this is the reason it takes things a while to get going.